Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HUMBERSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

European Regional Development Fund

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of total European regional development fund grants to the United Kingdom has gone to Scotland since the inception of the fund in 1975.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): Since the European regional development fund was set up in 1975, approximately 25 per cent. of the grant-aid allocated to the United Kingdom has related to projects in Scotland.

Mr. Knox: Does not that suggest that Scotland is doing very well out of the European regional development fund? What steps is my hon. Friend taking to publicise the grants?

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful for the consistency with which my hon. Friend provides the opportunity to publicise these excellent arrangements. I am sure that he will be interested to know that the total of grants and loans allocated to Scotland from Community sources is now more than £1,000 million.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister confirm that the EEC has now offered funds for agricultural development in the Highlands and Islands? If that is so, what is the amount of the offer, and are the Government accepting it?

Mr. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that there is an EEC project in the Western Isles. I think that the total sum amounts to about £20 million. The right hon. Gentleman might wonder why the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), whose constituency is receiving that aid, has so far been unable to express some gratitude to the EEC for that.

Mr. Corrie: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if we had not joined the EEC we would not be receiving the grants, and that many projects would not have been started in Scotland?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is correct. The Labour Party's policy of withdrawal from the European

Community, if put into practice, would severely damage exports, reduce inward investment and, as a result, increase unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Minister accept that the awarding of the regional grants, as distinct from the loans, depends entirely on the Government giving aid to the various assisted areas? Does the Minister further accept that, once the Government's policy of abolishing the assisted area status of many areas in Scotland, including parts of the Central region, is fully implemented, those areas will no longer qualify for the regional aid about which he is boasting?

Mr. Fletcher: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. With regard to the second part, he will be aware that it is Government policy to ensure that regional aid is given to those parts of the United Kingdom that are in most need, and that that relates our own regional development areas to the EEC regional development fund. He will also know that, since the Government came into office, Scotland has had a larger share of development area regions than any other part of the United Kingdom.

Whisky Industry

Mr. Myles: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the prospects for employment in the Scotch whisky industry.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I expect that, after a period of necessary adjustment in stocks, production will rise again in the medium term, and that should help to sustain employment prospects in the industry.

Mr. Myles: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scotch whisky industry, because of the world recession, is facing severe problems, especially in the United States, and that it is trying to combat them by a promotional effort in that country? Will my hon. Friend give every support to that effort?

Mr. Fletcher: I am aware that, as my hon. Friend says, the Scotch whisky industry is suffering from the world recession. He will know that it is suffering from the fact that difficulties are being caused, for example, in the United States, where there is at present a preference towards lighter drinks such as vodka. We shall do all we can to assist the Scotch whisky industry to promote exports overseas. We are encouraged by some noises from Japan in recent days that there may be a more helpful attitude in that country towards further imports of Scotch whisky.

Mr. Maclennan: Has the hon. Gentleman read the report in today's Financial Times that the French are having considerable success in promoting brandy in Hong Kong because of the belief there that brandy has strong aphrodisiac qualities, whereas whisky is alleged to reduce the libido? Will the hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that that scurrilous claim is denied?

Mr. Fletcher: I must confess that I would have preferred the hon. Gentleman to have written to me about that entirely false allegation. The publicity that he has given it makes it a little more difficult for us to deny it.

Mr. Pollock: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the beginning of this year the distilling sector was operating at only 55 per cent. of full capacity, and the bottling and blending sector at no more than 72 per cent. of capacity?


Is he also aware that the situation is generally recognised to have worsened since then, and the industry hopes that the Government will give it all possible support at this critical time?

Mr. Fletcher: I agree that the industry is going through a difficult time, for the reasons that we have discussed. In our export promotion effort and in other ways we shall do all that we can to make sure that the industry soon returns to its leading position in the world drinks league.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the sums being made available by the Scotch Whisky Association are totally inadequate to meet the challenge of white spirit, and that, if the Scottish industry is to be protected, more will have to be done to shake people out of their complacency?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to measure the effort being made by the industry merely in terms of the money made available by the Scotch Whisky Association. He must also take into account brand promotions, which must run into millions of pounds a year at home and abroad.

Unemployed Persons (Bothwell)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest unemployment figures for the Bothwell area; and if he will visit the jobcentres in the Bothwell constituency.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On 12 November 1981, 3,788 people were registered as unemployed in the Bellshill and Uddingston unemployment office areas, which between them cover the major part of the Bothwell constituency. My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to visit the jobcentres in the Bothwell constituency.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Bothwell is part of the North Lanarkshire area, where we have a 20·4 per cent. unemployment rate? Is he aware that that figure does not include this year's school leavers who are not yet on the register, and that the redundancies that I announced to the House a fortnight ago have also not yet been added to the unemployment figures? Since the steel industry is also under severe pressure, will the hon. Gentleman visit the Bothwell jobcentres to discover the facts for himself? If he has any thoughts for Scotland, will he visit Scotland to find out what is happening there?

Mr. Fletcher: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's main points. I visited factories in his constituency recently. He will know that workers are being taken on by companies in the area, such as Levi-Strauss, which is operating successfully, and two high-technology companies, Pye TMC and Ferranti, which are both in Bellshill. They are taking on a considerable number of new workers. The hon. Gentleman will also know that all the unemployed 1981 school leavers will have been offered places on the youth opportunities programme by the end of this year.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Has the creation of the "Locate in Scotland" unit been successful in constituencies such as Bothwell in attracting inward investment with a view to reducing unemployment?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is right in his assumption that the "Locate in Scotland" unit is performing encouragingly, and we look forward to seeing the results of its success in the new year.

Mr. Millan: Why does the hon. Gentleman persist in making optimistic speeches about Scottish industry being on the upturn when the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures for unemployment published last week show that next year unemployment in the United Kingdom will rise by 300,000 and while the figure for industrial production in Scotland during the second quarter of this year shows a further reduction of 4 per cent. in a single quarter?

Mr. Fletcher: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I make any effort to dodge the difficulties involved in the level of unemployment in Scotland or in closures and redundancies that take place. However, it is right that on the occasions—and the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are some—when substantial export orders, shipbuilding orders or inward investment opportunities come to Scotland my right hon. Friend and I should take the opportunity to spread such encouraging news throughout the country.

Mentally Disordered Patients

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend the law relating to the property of mentally disordered patients in Scotland in line with the suggestions made in the 1975 publication of the Mental Welfare Commission "No Place to Go".

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980 extended the powers of the sheriff court in this field. These changes have been welcomed by the commission. My Department is considering what further improvements need to be introduced, but I am not persuaded that an independent body as proposed by the commission would be appropriate.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has no doubt read the latest report from the Mental Welfare Commission entitled "Does the Patient come first?", which is highly critical of the activities of the curators responsible for the estates of mentally disordered patients. Is he aware of the case in my constituency of a youth who had a serious car accident that left him a physical and mental wreck? He was awarded £75,000 compensation, but the curator allows the family, which is receiving supplementary benefit, the princely sum of £12 a week and even asks for receipts for the money spent on sweets that the family takes to the youth in hospital. Is it not an absolute disgrace that we have such inquisitors in Scotland, and should they not be put in their place?

Mr. Stewart: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would write to me with details of the case.

Mr. Hamilton: I have already written to the Scottish Office.

Mr. Stewart: On the more general point, the Scottish Law Commission is reviewing the law relating to the appointment of curators bonis.

Mr. John MacKay: On the question of mentally disordered patients, does my hon. Friend intend to


introduce legislation to take account of the recent ruling of the European Courts of Human Rights on this matter? If so, when does he intend to bring forward the legislation?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. As a result of the judgment of the European Court, a change in the law will be required to give patients detained under restriction orders a periodic right of appeal. My right hon. Friend proposes to introduce amending legislation on that matter in due course.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is more than 20 years since the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 was passed, and that the Mental Welfare Commission is expressing serious disquiet about the way that some curators regard their function as being merely to conserve a ward's estate? My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has raised a serious point, and I ask the Minister to accept that the time has come for a wider look at how curators, once appointed, carry out their functions.

Mr. Stewart: On the hon. Gentleman's general point about the 1960 Act, the commission acknowledges, in general, that it is still an effective piece of legislation, though it has suggested amendments. On the specific point, I have said that the Scottish Law Commission is reviewing the law. The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a complex area, but I assure him that I will draw his point to the attention of the commission.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Ancram: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how per capita public expenditure in areas for which he is responsible compares with similar public expenditure for the United Kingdom as a whole.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Identifiable public expenditure per head, which includes some expenditure not within my direct responsibility, remains about 20 per cent. higher in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Ancram: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that answer. Does he agree that it shows clearly the great concern of the Government for the people of Scotland and gives the lie to the protestations of the Opposition that the Government have neglected Scotland for the past two and a half years?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maxton: I bet you are!

Mr. Younger: I continue to do everything that I can to ensure that public expenditure in Scotland matches the needs of Scotland. I claim that this very much does that.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State realise that Scotland is subsidising England hand over fist by exporting to the Treasury this year alone £4,000 million of oil revenue? In view of the terrifically high rate of unemployment in Scotland, does he think that this money, or a good part of it, should be deployed on the regeneration of the economy of Scotland and the provision of jobs for young and old?

Mr. Younger: I disagree totally with the hon. Gentleman. Scotland has much larger sources of supply through being part of the United Kingdom. Spending is higher per head in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that.

Mr. Craigen: What efforts has the Secretary of State made to ensure that Scotland gets a high percentage of public purchasing by Government Departments and nationalised industries?

Mr. Younger: We watch this matter all the time. It is an extremely important point. In regard to North Sea oil related expenditure, United Kingdom firms get between 70 and 80 per cent. of the associated business. Of that, roughly half goes to Scottish firms. We do our best to maximise this at all times.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the myth about oil was destroyed? Is it not the case that if the median line were extended out to sea there would be considerable doubt whether Scotland could claim the oilfields? Could not the Orkneys and Shetlands claim a substantial part of them as theirs?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. The vast majority of Scots people regard themselves as part of Great Britain and are glad to take part in the exploitation of oil as part of Great Britain.

Electricity Prices

Mr. Harry Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board on the implementation of schemes, based on the announcement made in the Budget on 10 March to help large industrial users of electricity in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: At the time of the Chancellor's announcement it was made clear that the concessionary scheme applied only to England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said then that the Scottish electricity boards expected their tariffs for industrial consumers to remain competitive with those in the rest of the United Kingdom and that they would review their terms to ensure that this was achieved. Discussions on these matters have taken place with the boards and there is no indication that industrial consumers in Scotland are paying more than their counterparts south of the border.

Mr. Ewing: How does the Minister explain the fact that Cape Insulation in my constituency wrote to me complaining bitterly that the SSEB had alleged that the Scottish Office was stopping it implementing a scheme for industry in Scotland? Has the Minister received a copy of that letter, which I sent to him? If he has received the letter, will he answer the allegation that the Scottish Office is frustrating the SSEB in implementing a scheme to help industry in Scotland pay less for its electricity?

Mr. Fletcher: I think that there must be a misunderstanding. I have written to the hon. Gentleman today replying to the copy of the letter that he sent me. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Scottish Office is not interfering with the SSEB' s tariffs. At a meeting with the chairman yesterday, I discussed this,


among other matters. The hon. Gentleman's constituent may be referring to the NEDC office's work on comparisons between United Kingdom and EEC prices, which is a different matter.

Sir Russell Fairgrieve: As the United Kingdom continues to lag behind its main European industrial competitors in the generation of a higher proportion of electricity by nuclear power, is there any chance that the SSEB and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board will break out of this United Kingdom stricture and create a higher proportion of nuclear energy?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the United Kingdom has a lower proportion of nuclear energy than some EEC countries, particularly France, where the proportion is very much to France's industrial advantage. Within the United Kingdom, Scotland has a higher proportion of nuclear energy than England and Wales.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I recognise that the industrial success of this country is of paramount importance, but will the Minister say whether he has had any discussions with the chairman of the SSEB about adopting a more sympathetic approach to disconnections and so enable the board to project a better public image based on its record and assist it to wipe off debts?

Mr. Fletcher: We have discussed these matters with the board, but the subject comes up again on question No. 11.

Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is frustration in some of the continuous process industries, such as the paper industry, over the fact that the continuous use of electricity throughout 24-hour and longer cycles gives considerable economic benefit to the electricity boards, which should be recognised in improved tariffs?

Mr. Fletcher: The boards have a responsibility, to make sure that each user of electricity meets the cost of that electricity; in other words, to ensure that the spread of costs is even. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that other factors must be taken into account where large users are concerned.

Breaches of the Peace

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were convicted for a breach of the peace during the past 12 months.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The latest available information is for 1979, when 31,659 persons were convicted of breach of the peace.

Mr. Brown: Will the Minister explain why one case was dropped? I refer to the shameful incident earlier this year when Councillor Tony Lester attacked a member of the public in Lothian regional chambers. Was a special deal done to permit this leading member of the Tory Party to escape prosecution? Is the Tory Party justifying extra-parliamentary activities? It is obvious to me that there is one law for the Conservative Party and another for the Labour Party. Will the Minister answer that question? Was a special deal done for Councillor Tony Lester, because that is what is being said in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: Questions of prosecution are for the procurator fiscal to consider. I am not aware of any such

deal as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman. One can think of a number of examples of public figures indulging in unruly behaviour without being prosecuted.

Mr. David Steel: How many Members of Parliament or ex-Members of Parliament feature in the statistics that the Under-Secretary gave?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not immediately aware of that information. Part of the explanation might be that Members of Parliament, quite apart from councillors, sometimes indulge in anti-social behaviour which is tolerated by the community as a whole.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the banning of alcohol at football and rugby matches has brought an immense improvement in behaviour? Will he consider recommending this legislation to the Spanish Government?

Mr. Rifkind: It is not one of my responsibilities to make representations of that or any other kind to foreign Governments. My hon. Friend is, of course, correct. We can be greatly heartened by the extremely encouraging evidence from football grounds throughout Scotland that since the ban on alcohol was introduced there has been a significant improvement in behaviour. All involved in these activities recognise this welcome improvement.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for the reform of local government finance in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: My proposals for amending the statutory provisions relating to determination of rates are contained in clause 1 of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill, which received its Second Reading earlier this week. The wider question of domestic rating will be considered in a Green Paper to be published shortly, as indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 2 December.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the question referred to the reform of local government finance, while his answer referred to his decimation of democracy in local government and to direct interference that will enable him, in effect, to set local rate levels? Will he undertake to give as soon as possible a clear indication of the exact nature of clause 3 of the Bill to which he has referred? This is a matter of pressing importance to local authorities such as Fife.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's second point. I am aware of his interest in the matter. We are discussing the issue with COSLA, and we shall announce as soon as possible what is to happen.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give some indication of the number of representations that he has received from ratepayers organisations and ratepayers that ratepayers should be adequately protected against excessive rate rises?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend may know that I have had between 30,000 and 40,000 such representations. I have had no additional representations since the debate on Monday when the new alterations were approved by the House.

Mr. David Steel: How can the Secretary of State justify his written answer to me yesterday that he plans to discontinue the capital grants scheme for local youth and voluntary organisations in favour of transferring money into projects in cities? How can he justify taking money from rural areas and giving it to the cities in this way? What is the connection between the two?

Mr. Younger: I stress that this is not the final decision. These are proposals for discussion. I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, and we shall of course take that into account in deciding whether to proceed in that way.

Mr. Millan: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question that was put to him on Monday, but which he did not answer then? What does the cash limit for 1982–83 mean in terms of a real reduction in expenditure for Scottish local authorities?

Mr. Younger: The matter will be discussed in the annual consultations with COSLA. That is how it is always presented to local government associations, and that is what we shall do next week.

Mr. Millan: We have been told the figures for England and Wales. Why cannot we be told the figure for Scotland?

Mr. Younger: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it has always been the practice to reveal that information at the rate grant settlement meeting. That is how he always did it, and I do not know why he wants me to change the practice now.

Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the promised consultative document on rating reform will deal with the considerable imbalance between those who pay for local government services through rates and the number of people who vote in local elections?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. He will have to wait until he sees the Green Paper, but I think that he will find that his point is fully covered.

House Building

Mr. Norman Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to increase the public sector building programme and in particular the construction of council houses.

Mr. Rifkind: I recently announced that an extra £38 million would be available to housing authorities in Scotland for house building and improvement in the current year, largely because of the additional receipts earned following the success of the Government's policy on the sale of public sector houses.

Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister accept that this is hopelessly inadequate, in view of the scale of the problem in Scotland and the fact that more than 48,000 construction workers in Scotland are unemployed? Does he agree that the time has come for more money to be spent on new house construction and modernisation schemes?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right if he is implying that more of our resources should be concentrated on capital expenditure and less on current expenditure. If he will do his best to encourage local authorities to reduce their current expenditure so that more is available for capital investment in housing and so on, he will help to overcome the problem that he has identified.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept that housing in Scotland is critical, particularly in the cities? Will he give this matter urgent priority? Unless we have more houses, especially sheltered housing for the elderly, there will be many difficulties, including much longer housing lists in cities.

Mr. Rifkind: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. He will appreciate that the local district council of the city that he represents would have had several million pounds more available for capital expenditure on housing, including sheltered housing, if it had taken a responsible decision on rents.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is the large number of empty council properties? Does he accept that an imaginative scheme is needed so that these houses may be occupied or sold? We require more sheltered housing, not the large housing schemes that we have had in the past.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right about the priorities. There are many empty houses in cities such as Glasgow and other urban areas. I compliment the Glasgow district council on its homesteading experiments, which have been conspicuously successful in Easterhouse and elsewhere. I am sure that in all those areas there is a great interest, particularly among young married couples, in buying surplus property that the council cannot persuade people to rent. I hope that experiments of that kind will be tried in many parts of Scotland.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that the so-called concern of the Government for Scotland, which was mentioned a few minutes ago in a particularly lickspittle way by the chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), has resulted in a tragic combination of the lowest number of public sector starts since the war and the highest unemployment in the construction industry since figures were started? That will not do. Is not the Minister filled with a feeling of black despair as he contemplates the dreary deflationary package unveiled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, which holds out no help whatsoever for people who hope to live in council houses in Scotland or for those in the construction industry who wish to provide those houses?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the policy of reducing capital expenditure on housing was advocated in the Labour Government's Green Paper on housing and has been continued by this Government.

Domestic Electricity Supplies

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce measures to control the use of disconnection by electricity boards in Scotland, in view of the hardships caused by current restrictions imposed by the South of Scotland Electricity Board.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: No. The South of Scotland Electricity Board carries out disconnections in accordance with the industries' code of practice on the payment of domestic gas and electricity bills. The operation of the code of practice has been examined by the Policy Studies Institute and its report, which was published recently, is being urgently considered by the Scottish electricity


boards and their consultative councils. They have agreed to consider changes in the operation of the code in the light of the report, and the aim is to introduce any changes to the code and its operation by March 1982.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that when the amount owed is more than £150 the South of Scotland Electricity Board will not accept a direct payment for fuel from the social security department on behalf of the recipient and that, as a consequence, unemployed families with young children have been disconnected? Will he review the situation because, south of the border, payments are taken up to £300? Does the Minister agree that consumers in the North are entitled to the same fair and just consideration as consumers south of the border?

Mr. Fletcher: I am aware of the problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I understand that, as a result of a recent meeting between the chairman of the board and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, more flexible arrangements are likely to be introduced. I discussed the matter recently with the chairman of the board. However, the percentage of consumers in the board's area who have been disconnected has remained virtually unchanged over the past three years.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems in the area is the tremendously high cost of electricity? Would there not be fewer problems if there were rationalisation of the costs of gas and electricity? What steps is he taking to make equalisation possible?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. He will know that the most significant factor in the cost of electricity is fuel. On a United Kingdom basis, coal is the basic fuel that is used to produce electricity. Therefore, the price of coal is important in this connection.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Minister accept that there is widespread concern because it appears that the South of Scotland Electricity Board is operating a much tougher policy on disconnections than almost any other generating board in the United Kingdom? Does he further accept that recently some alarming cases of disconnection have come to light? Will the Minister raise this matter with the board and discuss with it a more flexible approach to what is becoming a serious problem?

Mr. Fletcher: I am aware of the seriousness of the problem. However, it tends to be exaggerated, and the board tends to be lambasted with accusations that cannot be justified. As I have already said, the board has undertaken to respond to the PSI report by March next year. I have asked the chairman to keep me informed of progress.

Ferry Services

Mr. John MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the progress of his negotiations with Caledonian MacBrayne on ferry services on the West Coast.

Mr. Rifkind: In company with my hon. Friend, I recently visited Dunoon and heard the views of various local interests on the future of the Gourock-Dunoon ferry service. My right hon. Friend is now considering these views and hopes to make a statement soon. Caledonian MacBrayne continues to provide satisfactory ferry services throughout the West Coast of Scotland.

Mr. MacKay: Does "soon" mean before the Christmas Recess? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the passenger service will continue from pier to pier? Will he further confirm that the current discussions revolve round the continued use of the "Juno" as the passenger ship and allowing her to carry vehicle traffic at the same time?

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific date for the announcement of the decision, but I can confirm that it is intended that a proper service for passengers will continue between the two terminals. Until any further announcement is made, the service between Gourock and Dunoon will continue in the same way as has operated till now.

Mr. Maxton: Can the Minister now tell us—he could not last month—whether the car docking facility at Gourock will remain if the Caledonian MacBrayne service is withdrawn from Dunoon, in view of the problems that would result for other ferry services on the Clyde if that facility were withdrawn?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the final decision before judging all the detailed implications. I confirm that that is one of the factors that we shall take into account before reaching a final decision.

Mr. Corrie: Will my hon. Friend persuade the Scottish Transport Group to produce individual accounts for ferry runs on the West Coast of Scotland so that islanders may know how much subsidy is being paid on each run?

Mr. Rifkind: I accept the basis of that question. When public subsidies are provided to support services, it is not unreasonable that the subsidies—whether or not subsidies are popular or justified—should be identified for each service.

Mr. Dewar: Has there not been a sorry tale of administrative indecision and political prejudice? Does the Minister accept that priority should be given to having a good service for pedestrian as well as vehicular traffic between Gourock and Dunoon and that any scheme should be tested against that criterion? Does he further accept that the Opposition and many people in the area served by the ferry will oppose any scheme that creates a monopoly for any private outfit?

Mr. Rifkind: From the beginning the Government's approach has been based on the criterion of a proper service to meet the requirements of local people. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that there is already a monopoly in virtually every service in Scotland. Obviously, it is desirable to avoid that if it can be done without massive public subsidy. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the Gourock-Dunoon service is the one service in Scotland that should not require a subsidy. Yet it receives the highest subsidy—£500,000.

Dairy Herd

Mr. Pollock: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current size of the Scottish dairy herd.

Mr. Younger: The provisional results of the 1981 June census show a dairy cow herd of 278,000.

Mr. Pollock: Given those interesting figures, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential for the Government to do all in their power to protect Scottish


producers from any measures that might discriminate against well-established and efficient methods of production?

Mr. Younger: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the efficiency of our producers, who have a fine record of keeping up milk production—which is going well—despite a reduction in the size of the herd. As my hon. Friend will know, we do not like the co-responsibility levy, and we shall argue strongly against any proposal that discriminates against our producers.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State imagine that it helps milk production to appoint a member of the Social Democratic Party from my constituency to the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, especially as her knowledge of milk and milk production is as negligible as her knowledge of politics?

Mr. Younger: It is beyond me to say whether it helps any organisation to have a member of the Social Democratic Party appointed to it. However, if a person is capable of doing a good job for a public body, that ability is not necessarily affected by his or her allegiance to a particular party.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State lay aside his political prejudice for a minute and tell us whether he is satisfied with the downturn in the size of the milk herd?

Mr. Younger: I do not have any political prejudices about these matters, as I have shown by appointing one of the hon. Gentleman's friends to such a position. Given the production level and performance of the Scottish dairy herd, I am satisfied that a good job is being done in difficult circumstances. If production continues at its present rate, there is every prospect that this will be a record year for milk production in Scotland

Mr. Myles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision of the Scottish Agriculture Department to require the pasteurisation of all milk by 1983 is wise in view of the recent outbreak of salmonella in the Keith area?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was sorry to hear about the recent incident in Banffshire in which an outbreak of salmonella poisoning affected more than 400 people, including 100 children. That confirms that my decision was right.

Agricultural Workers

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many agricultural workers were registered unemployed in each of the last three years in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: In August 1981—the latest date for which informtion is available—4,748 people who last worked in the agriculture and horticulture industries were registered as unemployed in Scotland. The corresponding figures for 1980 and 1979 were 3,365 and 2,505 respectively. We are well aware of the implications of the decline in agricultural employment for rural communities and this is, of course, taken into account in our wider economic and social policies for these areas.

Mr. Steel: How do those figures break down? To what extent is it possible to blame the lack of profitability in the hill and upland sector of farming for the increase in the figures? I suspect that that is the cause.

Mr. Younger: A great deal is probably due to improved productivity in agriculture. I have no doubt that the series of bad years that Scottish farming has suffered has had some effect on the number of those employed in the industry. Even the right hon. Gentleman would not accuse the Government of failing to help the farming industry. We have devalued the green pound three times and provided the highest ever hill livestock compensatory amounts.

Mr. Home Robertson: As a significant number of those made redundant by Scottish farmers have been put out of their houses, will the Secretary of State consider reviewing the tied housing law in Scotland, particularly in view of the opinions recently expressed by both sides of the Scottish farming industry?

Mr. Younger: I pay tribute to the work that the farming industry, the National Farmers Union and others have done on this subject. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know better than most people that if someone who is required to work on a farm leaves his job, it is essential that someone else should be employed to do the work. Otherwise, farming cannot continue.

Mr. John McKay: Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I was to read that the Scottish National Party's Member of the European Parliament representing the Highlands and Islands allied herself with the Fianna Fail party in signing a motion to the great detriment of British agriculture? That motion, if adopted, would diminish the benefits that flow to British agriculture from the Common Market.

Mr. Younger: I share my hon. Friend's mystification about the activities of that Member of the European Parliament, who seems to be part of the Gaullist group in the EEC. However, her reading cannot have been effective if she thinks that the Government have neglected farming, because the reverse is true.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister and the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) bring their knowledge up to date by reading the newspapers? If they had been up to date, they would have known that Mrs. Winifred Ewing did not sign that motion.

Mr. Younger: I am fascinated to hear what Mrs. Ewing has not signed, and I am also interested to see what she has signed. They are often in conflict with one another.

Mr. Millan: Did the Secretary of State miss the point about tied houses? We understand the legitimate needs of farmers, but those who are displaced also have needs. The English legislation seems to be working satisfactorily. I understand that the National Farmers Union in Scotland is now persuaded that similar legislation could operate in Scotland. Why cannot the Minister consider that?

Mr. Younger: I shall be glad to consider that. I should be particularly interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman lends his support to it. I have another good reason for taking a careful look at the situation, and I shall do so.

Job Creation

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take further initiatives together with the Scottish Development Agency in areas of exceptionally high unemployment.

Mr. Younger: Those areas in Scotland facing the most severe economic problems will continue to benefit to the fullest extent from regional policy measures. In addition, a number of special local initiatives have already been taken involving the Scottish Development Agency and others, and I am considering the potential for further such initiatives.

Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in Annan is very high and that in Sanquhar it stands at 21 per cent., which is about the highest level in Scotland? Will he consider special incentives along the lines of a mini enterprise zone in areas of special difficulty?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about those areas in his constituency, which I have visited with him on several occasions. There are particular problems there. The enterprise zone programme is essentially experimental. If we are to evaluate the experiments properly, it is not sensible to scatter a whole lot of new enterprise zones round the country before we have seen how the first ones work. However, we are always ready to look at the most appropriate measures for areas. No doubt my hon. Friend will get in touch with me if he has any special suggestions for his area.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people believe that the SDA should adopt a more adventurous role in its difficult task of creating new jobs in Scotland? How will the guidelines issued recently assist the SDA to do that job and be more adventurous than last year?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's wishes, but I am not certain what he means by "adventurous". The SDA thinks that the new guidelines are suitable and a great improvement. No viable industrial project in Scotland has been unable to go ahead because of shortage of funds to back it. I attach a great deal of importance to that, and so does the SDA.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Caravans

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will meet the procurator fiscal for Perth to discuss the number of prosecutions for illegal parking of caravans.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): My noble and learned Friend and I regularly meet procurators fiscal. As recently as last month I met the procurator fiscal at Perth. Although the unauthorised parking of caravans was not discussed at this meeting, my noble and learned Friend and I are in correspondence with him about this matter.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he acknowledge that a large number of travelling families are illegally parking in my constituency and that the apparent collusion between national and local government officials and the discredited travelling families advisory committee to delay the opening of the Tulloch site is bringing the rule of law in that part of Scotland into disrepute?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I hope that there will be no delay in the provision of sites for traveling

people. Grants of 100 per cent. are available. If there are bureaucratic difficulties, it is up to everybody concerned to get rid of them.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman note that there appears to be unauthorised parking of caravans in my constituency at the east end of Blantyre? I should certainly not be party to the prosecution of travelling families, but could not his Department, together with local authorities, clean up sites and make them available to travelling families?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With respect, it is not my Department's duty to clean up sites for travelling people. They have 100 per cent. grants. Where there is a problem local authorities should get on with solving it and providing sites.

Solvent Abuse

Mr. Ancram: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions for offences related to solvent abuse have been initiated by his Department in the last six months.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As solvent abuse itself is not illegal, no separate register is kept of prosecutions arising out of this social evil.

Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that there may be instances in which another crime related to solvent abuse might arise and where prosecution might be considered? In the light of the consultative document issued by the Scottish Home and Health Department, will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will consult the Minister responsible for health in Scotland before such prosecutions are taken?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The basis upon which a prosecution is taken when a crime is committed, regardless of what the stimulus to it might be, is whether that prosecution is justified. I am in constant consultation with my colleagues about this abuse. The whole House shares the concern about it.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: In view of the low-key approach to this big problem, is there not some justification for requiring the police to investigate any offences committed by someone who is under the influence of solvents? After all, the consumption of alcohol alone is not an offence. Why should it be difficult to obtain the information?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. Alcohol consumption is not registered—perhaps fortunately. In all cases in which solvent abbuse is part of a complaint, the police do a marvellous educational job in advising parents, local authorities and teachers of the appalling dangers, which a recent case demonstrated.

Fox-hunting

Mr. Canavan: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what criteria are used for deciding whether to prosecute people for incidents arising from fox-hunting.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The same criteria are used to decide whether to prosecute in any such case as are used in any other case—namely, whether there is prima facie corroborated evidence that a criminal offence has been committed and, if so, whether a prosecution is merited.

Mr. Canavan: Has an investigation been made of the activities of the Linlithgow and Stirling hunt following my recent letter to the Lord Advocate? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the blatant discrimination against some of my constituents who were arrested after a nonviolent, anti-hunt protest, such as blowing hunting horns, whereas members of the hunt and their supporters were allowed to use obstruction and violence? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a mounted policeman, who took part in the hunt, seemed to be taking orders from the master of the hunt? Is it not time that something was done to stop police protection being given to upper-class thugs and hooligans who take part in such a cruel blood sport?

Dr. M. S. Miller: Tally ho! Tail him.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the foxes. There is no prejudice in any prosecution on any basis. I am sure that the House can well understand the hon. Gentleman's fellow feeling for the red fox.

Sir Russell Fairgrieve: If my hon. and learned Friend intends to proceed along the devious lines outlined by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), should he not include people involved in fishing and shooting?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It might interest the House to know that in the incident, which is still sub judice, solvent was sprayed on dogs.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not know that the matter was sub judice.

Scottish Law Commission

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when next he will meet the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Neither I nor my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Advocate has at present any plans to meet the Scottish Law Commission, but meetings are held as and when necessary.

Mr. Wilson: Has not the Law Commission produced a substantial report on divorce and the division of matrimonial property? Is it not time that the Government held meetings to discuss that report? Are the Government prepared to accept the report, and, if so, what date has been set for legislation?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: According to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Gentleman wants an answer to that question, he can table a question and I shall answer it.

Mr. Ancram: In view of the increasing number of cases of anti-social behaviour by neighbours, will my hon. and learned Friend suggest to the Law Commission that it should re-examine the law of nuisance to see whether it meets present circumstances?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am always in favour of anything that gets rid of nuisances.

Mr. Dewar: The Solicitor-General for Scotland must not brush off serious questions in that way. He answers for divorce law matters in the House, and the Law Commission is involved in them. Can he confirm that there will be a statement or a consultative document from

the Government early in the new year on the structure of divorce law in Scotland, not necessarily on the grounds for divorce? What will the statement or document cover?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I assure the House that I treat the matter with great responsibility. I also treat your rulings, Mr. Speaker, with great responsibility. I am in some difficulty whether to render to God or to Caesar in this matter.

Hon. Members: Which is which?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain his priorities.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In accordance with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, when somebody tables a question about my priorities I shall answer it.

Later—

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the Solicitor-General for Scotland for intervening when I did, but he made such a good remark that I gave in to temptation.

High Court (Glasgow)

Mr. Pollock: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many sittings of the High Court have taken place in Glasgow to date in 1981.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There have been 12 sittings of the High Court in Glasgow in 1981, including the current sitting, which began on 30 November.

Mr. Pollock: Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that he has the balance right between the amount of time that he spends performing his duties in the House and the amount of time that he spends appearing in the High Court in Glasgow?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I undertake the duties of prosecuting in Glasgow High Court and other places according to what I judge to be in the public interest in demonstrating the serious view of violent crime taken by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy (Fire)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he expects to receive the report from the procurator fiscal concerning his inquiries into the fire at the nurses' home at the Victoria hospital, Kirkcaldy on 13 November.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous reply to him on 26 November 1981.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the considerable public anxiety about the matter, would it not have been better to have had a public inquiry at which all the facts could have been seen to be brought out in public? Will the report, together with the evidence that was adduced, be published, so that we may read it?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Without giving anything away, I can say that the report, when it reaches my noble and learned Friend, will be considered with a view to seeing whether there should be a public inquiry under the Act. I do not give anything away if I say that an inquiry is likely. I might even he responsible for conducting it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is time for the statements, but I shall allow one question from each side.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his last words. Will he ensure that in the meantime there is an inquiry into how long the fire may

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I assure my hon. Friend that all inquiries into this serious and worrying accident will be investigated. It is a matter for my noble and learned Friend to decide, but it is more than likely that there will be a public inquiry.

Mr. Harry Ewing: May we take it that the public inquiry, when it takes place, will be of a wide-ranging character and that, as the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) said, every aspect of that tragic fire will be taken into account? Will the Solicitor-General draw to the attention of his hon. Friend the Minister for Health the condition in which the building has been left? The fire-damaged windows have not been boarded up and loose curtains are blowing all over the place. It is a disgraceful sight for people going in and out of the hospital and a constant reminder of the horrors suffered by the nurses.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will have heard those

remarks. Between him and the local authority perhaps something will be done about it. If an inquiry is ordered by my noble and learned Friend, I assure the House that it will be wide ranging. There has been a delay because of the immense amount of investigation that has gone on in preparation for any inquiry.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After midnight last night, during the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards), the Department of Industry agreed to open its files and provide access to the Comptroller and Auditor General in his preliminary inquiries into British Leyland.
This morning I telephoned the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland to warn him that I would ask whether it would be possible for him to answer question No. 35, which would clarify the position of the Scottish Office about access to its files by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It may be that the Secretary of State will wish to answer question No. 35 now.

Mr. Speaker: I have received no request.

Inner Cities

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The Government recognise that no single announcement can be the measure of the inner city and urban problem, but it is important to take those decisions that we can as soon as practical.
Next week my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services will chair a major conference for the European Campaign for Urban Renaissance which will seek further ways of encouraging the voluntary sector in the inner cities.
I must now take important decisions about the allocation of my departmental resources to the urban areas and inner cities next year. Public expenditure is in many cases essential, but it is not, and of itself cannot be, the whole answer. As important is the need to open a range of opportunities for private involvement and investment, which will add significantly to the public resources in urban areas and will widen the choice in many areas for those living and investing there. The urban areas, and especially the inner cities, have a concentration of unemployment and a deterioration of environment that argue for a particular stimulus for the construction industry and capital programmes.
It is against that background that I have reached certain conclusions about the allocation of my departmental programmes for next year. First, the Government believe that the derelict land programme should play a bigger role in urban policy. Derelict land reclaimed at public expense can lead to development by the private sector that adds very substantial private expenditure to the basic public expenditure. At the moment very little reclaimed land is developed. Next year I intend to increase the derelict land programme from £40 million to £45 million.
In allocating the uncommitted part of the programme I shall have particular regard to bids from local authorities in conjunction with the construction industry demonstrating the use to which the reclaimed land is to be put. I shall look especially favourably on those joint public-private sector schemes drawn from the land registers that offer the greatest private sector enhancement for every pound of public expenditure. I shall especially look to schemes that lead to housing, industrial, commercial, sporting and recreational opportunities. I shall invite representatives of the local authorities and the construction industry to meet me next week to establish the procedures whereby I receive special bids for joint schemes by the end of January.
Secondly, we shall enable the two urban development corporations of London and Merseyside to undertake substantially more projects in 1982–83 than in the present year. I expect to authorise some £50 million worth of schemes compared with the £15 million that they expect to spend on works this year. The House will realise that this, too, will attract much greater sums of private investment to enhance the effort that the public sector is making.
Finally, we have taken a important decision about resources for the urban programme in 1982–83. The local authorities in partnership and programme areas were asked to draw up programmes on a basis that would have implied a total of £215 million for the urban programme as a whole. I am glad to say that we have been able to improve

substantially on that figure and will increase the total available by up to £55 million to some £270 million, including a special provision of £5 million additional stimulus to low-cost home ownership.
My announcements today must be seen in the context of an urban problem that will demand our continuing attention. They do not represent a whole response, but they make an important contribution.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As we shall be debating these matters at length tomorrow, I shall confine myself today to questions seeking clarification of certain matters.
First, can the Secretary of State say on what annual price basis the sums of money that he has mentioned are posited? Secondly, can he say whether the figure of £270 million is inclusive or exclusive of the two docklands urban development corporations? If it is inclusive, can he provide a comparison on a constant price basis with the £224 million that he announced last February for the whole urban programme at 1980 survey prices? If it is exclusive, can he provide a constant price basis comparison with the £158 million that he announced for the urban programme, exclusive of docklands?
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State give further details of the matters that he announced at Question Time last Wednesday, when he said that he had approved new urban programme projects in Lambeth, Hackney and Tower Hamlets? We wish to have details of those. Fourthly, can he say what decision he has reached about reimbursement to the six local authorities that were successful against him in the October court judgment on the £8,983,000 that he unlawfully withheld from them?
Fifthly, does the Secretary of State intend to reimburse the urban programme grant that he withheld from Hackney, Islington and Lambeth in September 1980? Sixthly, will he now abandon his attention of holding back £44,666,000 in rate support grant from 17 partnership and programme authorities as a penalty for alleged overspending?

Mr. Heseltine: I am holding consultations with the London boroughs involved in the recent court action very much in accordance with the views expressed in the action. Details of further schemes for expenditure approval in the three London boroughs is for discussion among the boroughs, and I believe that it is now taking place.
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to add to what I say at the Dispatch Box so that he may have a clearer picture, but I can say that the figures that I gave were on a cash basis. The £270 million is inclusive of the urban development corporation's expenditure. To break down the figures to some extent, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is anticipated that next year's urban expenditure programme, on a constant price basis, will be at the highest level ever. The figure for the urban programme for 1979–80 at November 1979 constant prices was £179 million. It is expected to rise to £190 million in 1982–83 on the same money base.

Mr. Kaufman: Can the right hon. Gentleman help me a little more? The calculations that he makes are not clear. He has clarified what I fear he sought not to clarify in his statement—the £270 million is inclusive of the two urban docklands development corporations.

Mr. Heseltine: I should have said that it is exclusive and in addition to the £270 million.

Mr. Kaufman: In February, the right hon. Gentleman announced an allocation of £158 million for 1981–82, exclusive of docklands. Is the £158 million at 1980 survey prices directly comparable with the £270 million which he has now announced for the urban programme? If so, can he revalorise it so that the two figures are directly comparable?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with holding back the £44,666,000 from the 17 programme and partnership authorities? If so, it would largely cancel out any increase that he has announced.

Mr. Heseltine: I am not making a statement today about the decision on holdback on the current overspend of local government. I have made my position clear. I believe that the over-expenditure on current account is one reason why we have seen significant reductions on capital account. It would not be right to reduce the pressure to secure reductions in current expenditure to facilitate the increase in capital expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the damage done previously as a consequence of such a procedure. The capital programme of his own metropolitan district of Manchester of £144 million in 1974–75 was reduced to £100 million under the Labour Government. I am trying to bring about a shift in favour of capital expenditure to reverse the trend.
I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman about his second point, as the figures are in different money bases and must be seen in comparative terms, but I can tell him that what I announced is a significant increase in real terms. The £158 million for 1981–82 is in November 1979 prices and compares with the equivalent of £190 million for the 1982–3 announcement, but at November prices the £190 million is the equivalent of the £270 million in cash, which I referred to in the statement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that these matters are to be debated tomorrow and that we have two important and abbreviated debates to follow, involving eight Front Bench speeches. Therefore, I shall allow questions to run until 4.5 pm.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the whole House—apart from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—welcomes what is one of the most important statements for some time concerning the revitalisation of city areas? Will he confirm that there will be no loss of local authority automony, and that the funds for the reclamation and revitalisation of land will not be confined to inner city areas but can be used for outer areas, where the majority of the vacant, dormant and derelict land lies?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful remarks. There is no intention to reduce local authority autonomy. Indeed, I believe that local authorities will benefit from the opportunities of the enhanced resources on capital account. Outer city areas will be very much considered in the derelict land scheme.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State remember that we were able to persuade him that increased spending by local authorities should not be counted when working out whether a local authority had fallen into the

penalty area on overspending? In view of his statement, can he guarantee that the arrangement will continue this year?

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to wait until we come to the rate support grant settlement, he will find that all those matters will be taken into account. We shall have to weigh the matter particularly against the changed bases for the Grant related expenditure assessment formula, which in the main, if I may say without anticipating the settlement, are likely to have a favourable impact on inner city areas.

Mr. David Alton: How can the Secretary of State talk about increased capital expenditure opportunities for local authorities when in Liverpool over the past two years there has been a £24½ million reduction in capital resources, through a 25 per cent. reduction in the capital allocation of the housing revenue account, and a £11½million reduction in the RSG settlement? Is he not merely giving us crumbs while taking away the meal? What is his answer to the allegation of the leader of the Liverpool city council that over the past five years, because of reductions in capital expenditure, Liverpool has lost 11,000 jobs?

Mr. Heseltine: I am in constant touch with the leader of the Liverpool city council and I hear a totally different message from him about the work that I am doing. I am sure that the people of Merseyside will realise that what I have announced today will be of considerable benefit to them.

Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that the large sums of money that he announced are not Danegeld to appease rioting areas but are soundly based to assist the recovery of the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will realise that, despite the real stresses in urban areas, the riots were severely limited. What I have announced today will benefit many parts of the country where there were no riots.

Mr. Robert Parry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Tory-Liberal coalition on the Liverpool city council is not building any public housing in the inner areas, in spite of the long waiting list and the demolition of pre-war tenement blocks? Will he speak to the council about that fact?

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot compete with the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of his area, but he will be aware that to solve the housing problem in Liverpool requires the restoration and rehabilitation of the large number of empty and derelict houses and not the building of more houses.

Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us welcome his acceptance that the problems of the inner cities can be tackled effectively only by a partnership between public and private investment? Does he accept that the extra resources that he announced today will not have the dramatic impact that is needed, particularly when they are set off against cuts in the rate support grant? What will he do to tackle the problem of the appalling quality of life on many inner city housing estates and provide more jobs in inner cities, particularly for the young unemployed?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising what I believe every serious observer of the position understands—that only with the combined resources of the public and private sector shall we bring about a new approach in the urban areas. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has fully understood the gearing effects of my proposals. I hope that the substantial sums of money that are being made available will attract additional sums from the private sector. I believe that there will be a significant impact on job creation in the area, but to have gone forward at a significantly different speed from the one that I announced today would not have measured up to the difficulty of making decisions on the precise schemes that we should follow.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making another contribution to the repair of the inner cities and particularly on the way in which he has done it. He spoke about capital and the involvement of the construction industry, and referred to special bids being made by January. Are we putting a time limit on that which would make it difficult to get the full benefit from such a scheme?

Mr. Heseltine: I have had to consider that carefully. It is a question of balancing the opportunities to prepare in detail the schemes with the need to bring an urgent injection of help and hope to those areas. I believe that many authorities already have schemes and, working quickly in conjunction with the private sector, will be able to put forward proposals. It is right, therefore, to err on the side of moving quickly, although it is open to me to modify the timetable if necessary.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that the major feature of Britain's inner city problem is the question of the young jobless? Is he further aware that in Greater Manchester alone 68,000 young people are unemployed? In the allocation of the funds, will he encourage local authorities to give priority to projects for the young unemployed?

Mr. Heseltine: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view. On Merseyside, I have been trying to put precisely that emphasis on my proposals. I hope to make additional announcements about how we are experimenting precisely to find opportunities of that sort. One experiment in which the House may be interested, and which I hope shortly to he able to confirm, is that we should have a higher ratio of apprentices to craftsmen on some of the schemes that we are trying to pioneer for building new houses.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I join other hon. Members in welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement. We are particularly grateful for the fact that he should be showing real and abiding interest in urban problems. Are we to understand that the £35 million extra for London and Merseyside is the total and that the extra £55 million is therefore to go to the other deprived areas? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that Birmingham did not involve itself in the unruly elements does not mean that there is not a great deal of work to be done there? Will he take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) that the outer city areas have just as many problems and could be helped that much quicker to make the cities really worth living in?

Mr. Heseltine: Of course, I want to ensure that the West Midlands has an appropriate share of the funds that are available because that area is having a difficult time at present. I have tried to make it clear what funds are available to the urban programme at large, as opposed to the urban development corporations. I want to ensure, when I consider the bids under the derelict land schemes, that the outer areas are considered as important as some of the inner areas.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although we have had no riots in any cities in Scotland, the problems of industrial decline and social deprivation are just as great, certainly in the city of Glasgow? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether we shall have an equivalent statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland about the measures that he intends to take to tackle the problems of inner cities in Scotland?

Mr. Heseltine: All territorial Secretaries of State are grappling with their own regional and urban problems. I have been privileged to send my officials to Glasgow to see what is happening with the GEAR scheme, and I hope to go there myself. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is in the Chamber and doubtless has heard the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am sure that, in the fullness of time, he will want to draw to the attention of the House the excellent work that he is already doing in Scotland.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I thank my right hon. Friend for the help that he has announced, which is desperately needed by inner cities such as Birmingham, where it is possibly more desperately needed than in other areas. I thank him also for promoting active schemes between the private sector and local government. Without pre-empting his conversations next week, will he be more precise about how he will utilise the private sector to help statutory owner schemes?

Mr. Heseltine: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's interest in that aspect of my announcement. Although I shall take a flexible attitude, depending on the response, I have it in mind that local authorities that are able to show that they have derelict land that can be cleared with the aid of derelict land grant shall be given preference if they say that they can then make use of the land for building or recreational purposes, which will give a private sector enhancement to the public sector finance that I am prepared to provide.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Commission for Racial Equality which has argued that effective measures to tackle racial disadvantage have been frustrated by the shift of resources from the inner cities for which he has been responsible? What will he do to deal with the inequalities that he created by the shift in policy on the rate support grant, which is now clearly to be seen to the prejudice of inner city areas, particularly in an area such as mine in Hackney?

Mr. Heseltine: The shift of resources that I made was largely from London to the provinces. Within that shift there was significant proportionate gain to some of the inner city areas. That was necessary in order to deal with the problems that had been created by the Labour Government, who made such a major shift from the


provincial areas, including the metropolitan provincial areas, to London. The biggest shift took place because some London authorities very much overspent their targets and therefore, under the block grant mechanism, voluntarily went through a process where they accentuated the shift away from London. As part of the process of trying to regenerate capital investment in this country, we have to pull back on current consumption.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one reason why this statement will be particularly warmly welcomed is that it will bring new work and new hope to the sorely stricken construction industry? Has he any intention of using the funds for fast-moving schemes, such as improvement schemes and land reclamation, because the problem is getting people back to work in the industry?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal more than I do about the construction industry. I want to keep an open mind as to the schemes that I select. Having "put on the table" the sum of money that is available, I would be better advised to wait for the response of the construction industry and the leaders of local government about how the money should be spent. I shall be calling urgently for meetings in order to get that under way.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what sort of regional spread he envisages? Will he say how much will go to Merseyside, Humberside, the city of Hull, and so on, so that we may have some idea of whether our local councils should spend time preparing schemes?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not at present have in mind a regional spread. I am interested in the quality of the schemes and the work that can flow from them. I believe that local authorities, particularly the local authorities in the hon. Gentleman's area, will react quickly to ensure that they get a proper share of the available finance.

Mr. Den Dover: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the private sector will greatly welcome his further involvement of it in the rebuilding of inner cities? Does he accept that many of us welcome the fact that he is using public expenditure in the most effective and efficient way—by pump priming?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is necessary to take every advantage that we can of the incremental expenditure from the private sector. I am aware that many local authorities have substantial capital receipts at their disposal which, under the new regimes, they are free to spend on capital programmes. They are not fully utilising those receipts.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Secretary of State accept that everyone on Merseyside, other than the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen), will consider his announcement as being inadequate to deal with the problems of Merseyside? How much of the £50 million being allocated to the urban development corporations will be spent on Merseyside? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a need not to distribute the rate support grant, which has already been greatly reduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in such a way that inner city areas such as Merseyside suffer once again?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a meaningful dialogue with some people on Merseyside, but my experience shows that there is a real welcome for what I have been trying to do on Merseyside. It is curious that the hon. Gentleman has failed to notice that. It is difficult to allocate money to the UDC on Merseyside and then spend it in another part of the country.

Mr. John Sever: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the money he is prepared to allocate to Birmingham will be well spent? There is no shortage of schemes available to use the money. Does he recognise that the regeneration that he is looking for in such places as Ladywood, in the centre of Birmingham, will come about only when much greater Government attention is given to the problems of inner cities and far greater resources are made available? May we look at today's statement as being the forerunner of many others?

Mr. Heseltine: I agree that money spent in Birmingham under the schemes will be well spent. The response of the local people will be typical of the determination to help themselves which characterises many people in the West Midlands. I very much sympathise with that view. I understand the need to continue to exert pressure and to help the inner cities—provided the hon. Gentleman realises that that means public and private help in partnership.

Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the additional resources for land clearance will be available to the designated inner urban areas such as Blackburn? Is he aware that much of the problem of unused land in inner urban areas arises from the obliteration of the public housing programme, which has not been, and cannot be, met by the private sector? Are there any proposals to increase the allocation of funds to the public housing programme? Does he accept the truth—however unpalatable—that, in the words of his own minute to the Prime Minister, it took a riot to make the Government change their policy?

Mr. Heseltine: The whole House realises that it serves no purpose to pretend that the inner city problem grew up under this Government. The decline throughout the inner cities is long standing. Local authority capital expenditure was halved by the Labour Government, which must be remembered when attempting to apportion blame. Let us remove ourselves from trying to apportion blame. The derelict land programme can be considered for the area represented by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that it will make an appropriate bid.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the decline of public housing, which I have always been the first to recognise. However, that was continuing in a straight line downwards under the Labour Government, and the capital programmes were substantially reduced by them after 1975—as the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) know. I greatly deplore the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best—although not an effective best—to prevent new rental accommodation from being made available in the private sector. He is also doing his best to persuade people not to buy their council houses, which would provide cash for the improvement of other council houses.
I hope that the whole House will welcome the fact that our announcement about next year's capital programme


for public sector housing is the first time for many years that a Government have looked for stabilisation rather than decline in the programme.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that additional capital investment in inner cities is greatly welcomed? Will he find some way whereby local authorities, if they keep within Government spending targets, may know in advance what capital sums are likely to be made available to them?

Mr. Heseltine: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's remarks. The more certainty and the longer period of notice that we can give in these matters, the more probable it is that we shall maintain the levels of expenditure. I am concerned because the local authority capital programmes appear to be significantly underspent. There are substantial resources that are not being spent but which could be spent under the freedom of the local government capital regimes. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Is the Secretary of State aware that I agree with his emphasis on co-operation between public and private enterprise in the redevelopment of inner city areas? He will know that one of the best examples of that is pursued by the London borough of Greenwich, where there has been highly successful co-operation. I hope that he will learn from that. The whole of his package appears to concentrate on physical construction projects. Does he not realise that one aspect of inner city redevelopment is investment in people? What funds will he make available to extend nursery, adult and further education and skill training, all of which are vital to the redevelopment of industry in inner city areas?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps through my fault, may have misunderstood the implications of what I said in my statement. While I wish to see the weighting of the programmes swung more and more towards capital investment, it is within the powers of the urban programme to support current expenditure. Indeed, a substantial amount of current expenditure is being sustained on the urban programme.
I said in my statement that the Government attach great importance to encouraging the voluntary sector in many of the inner urban areas. That can be supported by the urban programme. It is a question of balance. It is not an absolute determination that only capital sums should be brought into play during the coming year. It is a question of swinging the balance and trying to make correct judgments.

Later—

Mr. Ken Eastham: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker. As you know, it was announced on the television screens that there would be a statement on the inner cities. Some of us have a special interest in the subject, and we sat patiently in our places and attempted to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. What is the purpose of notifying us that a statement is to be made if we cannot join in the questioning?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not the only person who is disappointed. Many hon. Members will be disappointed later this evening when they fail to catch the eye of the Chair during the debate that has been delayed. If every hon. Member lets his indignation pour over me when he is not called while making what is not a genuine point of order, it will make life extremely difficult. When I was not called by the Chair, I used to go and have a cup of tea in the Tea Room.

Privy Councillors (Participation in Debates)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether, among your various commitments, you have had the opportunity to read Hansard. May I refer you to your earlier remark that eight Front Bench speakers wish to take part in the debates today? Yesterday, when you were not in the Chair, I raised a point of order on two occasions. There was a continuous spate of Privy Councillors coming into the Chamber, making their speeches and walking out. They did not put in another appearance until the Front Bench speeches, and some did not return to the Chamber at all.
Some of my Back-Bench colleagues are not Privy Councillors. They have been trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. You said that questions would end at 4.5 pm, and I make no complaint. However, if there is to be a regular habit of Privy Councillors receiving preferential treatment, making their speeches and walking out, my hon. Friends on the Back Benches will not have an opportunity to speak.
Will you consider that matter, Mr. Speaker, to determine whether there could be a fairer sharing of time in our debates for all Members? Will you tell the Privy Councillors that only a limited number of them should speak? That would allow Back Benchers, who have very little time available to them, the opportunity to take part in debates.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member of the House. I shall certainly consider his constructive proposal for a limit on the number of Privy Councillors called in any debate. I realise the frustrations and difficulties that are caused.
The hon. Gentleman drew our attention to increasing evidence of the discourtesy—not limited to Privy Councillors—of Members speaking in the debates and then leaving. That is unworthy of the House. It has long been our tradition that if anyone participates in a debate he owes the House his attention for the remainder of the evening, at least until the debate concludes.

London Docklands Development Corporation

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Can you assist and advise me? From debates in the House you will be aware that the London Docklands Development Corporation has taken over powers of local government in a substantial area of London, especially in relation to compulsory purchase, public land, and planning powers.
The three areas involved are Newham, Tower Hamlets and Southwark.
The only public representatives who can call the Secretary of State to account for any action of this particularly undemocratic and unelected body are the respective Members for those constituencies, who can pursue parliamentary procedures. An additional £50 million has been allocated to this undemocratic corporation for expenditure in my constituency and in others. I hope that you can advise me, Mr. Speaker, on the way in which I can call the Secretary of State to account and ask him questions when announcements of this sort are made.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot be as helpful to the hon. Gentleman as I was to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). However, I shall consider what he has said.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Bruce Millan: I beg to move,
That this House reaffirms its commitment to a 12-mile exclusive limit, dominant preference in the 12- to 50-mile zone, effective conservation measures, and catch quotas for the United Kingdom which fully reflect the extent of fishing stocks in United Kingdom waters and the loss of fishing opportunities for the United Kingddom in third-country waters, as the essential requirements for the United Kingdom in any acceptable common fisheries policy.
I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that this is to be a short debate. I shall try to make a short speech, although there is a good deal of ground to cover. I hope that I shall be excused if I do not deal with some of the current issues that I know concern a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The debate is especially well timed. We were hoping that there would be a settlement of this difficult and longstanding problem by the end of the year. We had hoped that there would be a settlement towards the end of last year, but those hopes were disappointed. The latest position, given the uncertainty following the Danish elections, does not hold out a great deal of hope that we shall get a satisfactory meeting and make progress before the end of the year. That being so, there must now be even greater worry and apprehension in the fishing industry than hitherto.
On 1 January we shall go over to a Belgian Presidency, which will be followed by a Danish Presidency. By the end of 1982 the full rigours of the common fisheries policy will come into effect. Unless there is some agreement before then there will be literally nothing to prevent other Community members from fishing right up to the beaches of the United Kingdom. Therefore, there is considerable worry in the industry.
When the Labour Government were in office they used to be told by Conservative members that if it were not for the obstructive and rather aggressive attitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) they could have reached an agreement much earlier. We did not get an agreement, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend took a robust view of British interests. It is ironic that nearly three years after the Conservative Government came to power we are no nearer a satisfactory agreement. In fact as I shall show, the situation has deteriorated during the past three years.
I shall not go into the wider issues of Common Market membership, but there is no way in which the common fisheries policy, as it is presently interpreted, can be anything other than prejudicial to the United Kingdom. If we were not members of the Common Market and were able to decide our fishing policy for ourselves, we would be in an extremely happy position, given 200-mile limits. We are trying to get the best deal that we can in what is

a fundamentally unsatisfactory situation, and one which will become more unsatisfactory as each month passes and we get nearer to the deadline at the end of 1982.
I am rather surprised that the Government have tabled an amendment. There is nothing in our motion that is anything more than a reaffirmation of commitments that were taken on by the Labour Government and fully supported by Conservative Members. There is nothing in our motion that will divide the House. We are all agreed about the 12-mile limit, dominant preference in the 12 to 50-mile zone, effective conservation measures and satisfactory catch quotas to reflect the contribution that we make to stocks in the North Sea and elsewhere.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Millan: No, 1 shall not give way. With respect to my hon. Friend and to Conservative Members, I hope that they will not seek to intervene too frequently. I shall try to make a short speech. It will help them and others if they are able to make their own contributions.
Is the meaning of the Government's amendment basically the same as that of the Opposition's motion? If it is., the amendment is completely unnecessary, but does it mean something different? When one considers the terms of the amendment carefully, one realises that it becomes clearer and clearer that it means something different and that it represents a considerable weakening of the position that has previously been taken by all the parties in this place on these negotiations. I think that it is unlikely that the Secretary of State for Scotland and his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be able to give the assurances that we require. Given the terms of the Government amendment and the likelihood that we shall not be given the assurances that we seek, we shall have to divide the House at the end of the debate.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the major difference between the Government's amendment and the motion is that "dominant" is left out before "preference"?

Mr. Millan: I intended to deal with that issue and a number of others in the course of my speech. If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall turn quickly to that matter.
I am pleased that the Government's amendment represents no weakening on the commitment to a 12-mile limit. I ask the Secretary of State to tell us the Government's position on historic rights. I understand that there are difficulties. Many historic rights have suddenly appeared, and most of us were not aware that they existed. Many of them have never been exercised. We want to hear from the Government that our commitment is genuinely to an exclusive limit. If there is any question of negotiations on that issue, they must take place only on the basis that historic rights will be phased out within a measurable period. There can be no going back on that.
On the 12 to 50-mile limit—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from the 12-mile limit, will he note the significant difference in the wording on that limit? The Government's amendment refers to a policy that
must maintain the need to secure an exclusive … limit".
It does not say that the policy is to secure it. It merely refers to maintaining the need for it.

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman has a good point. He is confirming what I have said. The more we


consider the wording of the amendment, the more we become suspicious. The motion refers to a commitment to a 12-mile exclusive limit as part of an acceptable agreement. The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there may be an agreement that provides some hope that later we shall get an exclusive 12-mile limit. I think that there is a difference between the motion and the amendment, but if there is not the Secretary of State can clear up the issue.
There is no doubt that there is a considerable difference when we come to the 12 to 50-mile zone. The terms of the motion are very different from those of the amendment. The Government amendment specifically avoids mention of the 12 to 50-mile zone. The concept of the 12 to 50-mile zone is that within that overall zone, which will go right round the United Kingdom, the first choice of fishing opportunities and control of overall fishing opportunities will go to the United Kingdom. It is as simple as that.
That does not mean that in the whole of that zone there are equally desirable fishing opportunities. In some areas there are fish, while in others there are no fish in any quantity. Control over the whole of that 50-mile zone should be in United Kingdom hands, and where there are good fishing opportunities the United Kingdom should have first bite at them. I thought that there was agreement on that between the two sides of the House.
The wording of the amendment is considerably weaker than that. We know that the Government have been thinking about the concept of fishing boxes in which some kind of preferential arrangements would apply. For example, there would be a North of Scotland box, and one that would take in the Irish Sea. I find it rather difficult to understand exactly how the boxes are intended to operate. The concept of boxes is a substantial derogation from that of a 12 to 50-mile preferential zone. How will the box system operate? Will there be limitations on the size of vessels? Will there be licensing arrangements? Will there be preferential quotas for the different boxes? If there are preferential quotas, what will be the United Kingdom's share? Most important of all, what will be the arrangements for keeping out foreign vessels, or at least allowing them in only under the strict control of the United Kingdom? Unless we have answers to those questions, even the box concept is a considerable derogation from that of the 12 to 50-mile preferential zone.
The wording of the amendment goes much further than that and will weaken the Government's negotiating position because it appears that the preference outside 12 miles—which is not defined in geographical terms—is designed to protect particularly dependent fishing communities. What does that mean? I remember the discussions that I had with fishermen from Shetland who were anxious to have preferential arrangements for their fishing.
Within a satisfactory overall common fisheries settlement there is much to be said for the United Kingdom having, and taking, the opportunity to manage its stocks in a way that pays particular regard to dependent fishing communities. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is something to which we can come only when we have a satisfactory common fisheries policy. It is not a substitute for a satisfactory overall settlement.
Paying particular regard to dependent fishing communities might be all right for Shetland, but it will not

be all right for other parts of Scotland where there are disagreements over their interests and those of Shetland fishermen. For example, many people from the North-East of Scotland have traditionally fished off Shetland, just as much as the Shetlanders have done. Such a scheme would also be of no use to fishermen from the North-East of England, the east coast of England or other areas of England.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not try to persuade those of us who represent specific Scottish interests that there can be some kind of settlement that will be satisfactory to the House if its provisions are acceptable to Shetland, but are not acceptable to the rest of the United Kingdom. What we want, and must have, is an agreement that protects the interests of all fishing communities in the United Kingdom.
If, having achieved a satisfactory settlement, we wish to manage our own stocks in a way that has regard to particular local communities, that is fair enough. We can decide how to do that under our own steam, but not as a part of or as a substitute for an effective common fisheries policy settlement. The wording of the amendment is therefore extremely dangerous and represents a considerable weakening of the Government's position.
I take it that the amendment means that, although the system of enforcement is Community-wide, the actual enforcement is under national control. If the right hon. Gentleman confirms that that is the meaning, we have no disagreement with it in principle, although some of us are highly dissatisfied with the practical working of it. Nevertheless, I do not believe that there is any difference in principle between ourselves and the Government on this.
On quotas, too, there is a weakening of the Government's position. The motion states that quotas should
fully reflect the extent of fishing stocks in United Kingdom waters and the loss of fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom in third-country waters".
Those words do not appear in the amendment. Interestingly enough on 26 November 1980 the Minister of State moved a motion on quotas which included precisely that matter.
I understood that when we talked about adequate quotas we meant quotas that took account of the considerable contribution that we make in terms of overall fishing stocks—about 60 per cent. of the total stocks available to the Community—and the fact that, more than any other country, we have lost fishing opportunities in third-country waters. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the wording of the amendment is that, again, the Government have weakened their position on this essential matter. Quotas and access go together, and we must obtain satisfactory arrangements in both respects.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not cite the 36 per cent. allocation of the seven major species as being in any way satisfactory. That allocation, which is roughly what we are working on at present, is highly unsatisfactory. The industry does not accept it. It has agreed to work to it only because there is nothing else available, but there is considerable dissatisfaction about it. It in no way reflects the fishing opportunities that we provide or the losses that we have sustained in third-country waters.
Moreover, even at this late stage, we do not know what will be the position in 1982. It is not enough to obtain satisfactory quotas for one year. We need some


permanence and certainty in the arrangements. If we start from an unsatisfactory figure, it should be the Government's objective not to maintain but to increase it. The Labour Government at one time put proposals to the Commission which would have had a ratcheting-up effect. Having started from a figure which we regarded as highly unsatisfactory, the quota allocations for subsequent years would have been made according to a built-in formula which would have increased our percentage of the total allowable catches as the years went by. At present, not only are the figures on which we are working unsatisfactory, but if there is to be anything like a satisfactory settlement there must be some certainty about the future. I believe that within the settlement we need an arrangement to increase our quotas as the years pass in order to come closer to what the House would regard as satisfactory quota arrangements.
As the situation stands, although the mackerel season in the South-West of England starts next month, we do not yet know what the quota arrangements will be. Nor do we know what the quota arrangements for mackerel will be next year for the west coast of Scotland. We also well remember the chaos which resulted from the Commissions's decision in the summer to open up the west coast herring fishery in a completely uncontrolled, objectionable way. To be fair to the Government, they eventually brought that under some kind of control. I am sure that the Government will not disagree when I say that the way in which the Commission behaved in that matter was not only objectionable but—I hope that I carry the Secretary of State with me on this—illegal. Yet, even in the light of that illegal action by the Commission we have seen no real sign of the challenge to the Commission that we expected from the Government.
Once the Commission begins to arrogate to itself decisions that ought to be made by Ministers, we are in a very dangerous area indeed. This is a warning for the future, because unless we get a satisfactory overall settlement soon our own national rights will be completely abrogated and we shall be at the mercy of the Commission and another eight nations whose interests are basically hostile to the interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, as each month goes by without a satisfactory settlement, our negotiating position gets weaker because the deadline of the end of 1982 gets nearer.
I shall not go over the whole argument about restructuring. We welcome what has been done in the way of temporary aid to the fishing industry. That was needed, because at the end of 1979 there was a collapse in prices as well as a loss of fishing opportunities. Before that, increased prices had managed to shield parts of the industry from the full effect of the loss of fishing opportunities. Therefore, temporary aid was absolutely necessary; but it was only temporary aid. We still have no idea what the Government have in mind for the restructuring of the industry.
There was a time when talk about overall structuring might have weakened our negotiating position in Brussels, because it would have looked as if we had given up the ghost about some of these major issues and were concerned only with the restructuring of the industry. We are now getting perilously close to a situation where disastrous things could happen to the fishing industry, yet there are no proposals for the necessary restructuring. That will have to happen even if we achieve an acceptable

settlement because of some of the developments relating to third country waters that are now absolutely irreversible within the context of the CFP.
We shall not achieve a settlement of the CFP by continually having meetings of fishery Ministers going through the details of individual quotas and so on. A real political will to reach a settlement is lacking. That must be generated by the United Kingdom, because it will not be generated elsewhere. Indeed, if the other Eight sit back and allow this situation to continue without a settlement, they will be in the happy position that, by the end of 1982, they will be able to fish up to our beaches. That political will must come from the United Kingdom. It will not come from fishery Ministers on their own.
We must make it clear to the other members of the Community that the absence of an acceptable CFP is a breaking point for the United Kingdom. It will create a crisis in the Community. It should be understood that a process of delay and dilatoriness on the part of the Eight will not lead to a complete collapse of will by the United Kingdom Government or the United Kingdom fishing industry.
I am sorry to say that there are signs in the weasel words of the amendment that we are seeing the beginning of a collapse of political will on the part of the Government. That is why we shall vote against the amendment tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House welcomes the progress achieved by Her Majesty's Government in the search for a satisfactory revised Common Fisheries Policy, particularly in relation to conservation and marketing; confirms that such a policy must maintain the need to secure an exclusive 12 mile limit, preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities, adequate quotas for the United Kingdom, effective conservation measures and a Community-wide system of enforcement as well as improvements in the marketing arrangements hitherto in force; and urges Her Majesty's Government vigorously to continue, in consultation with the fishing industry, the search for a solution on the outstanding issues".
I was looking forward to hearing the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) give us his views on the state of these negotiations. I was hoping that he would reaffirm one of the most important features that has characterised these negotiations since they originally started—that every delegation that has gone to negotiate a CFP at Brussels has gone with the firm declaration of the fullest possible support from all sides of the House of Commons.

Mr. Millan: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give way. I shall not interrupt him again. I agree with what he has said, but why did the Government table an amendment?

Mr. Younger: I am sorry that I gave way, because I shall deal with that point. The right hon. Gentleman has conspicuously not reaffirmed that support this time. Bearing in mind that we must advance the strongest possible case for British fishing industry interests in these negotiations, I hope that whoever replies for the Opposition will make it perfectly clear that they warmly


support the Government in their efforts to negotiate a successful and acceptable deal, because anything less than that will be something with which we have not dealt before.
The right hon. Gentleman spent much time talking about the amendment. He was quite unnecessarily defensive about the motion. The fact that we have tabled an amendment means only that we have referred to a number of important issues vital to an acceptable fishing agreement for the British fishing industry that are not covered in the motion.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Younger: I am sorry. I must proceed with my speech because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman would have been much better advised to have addressed himself to the issues rather than creating quite imaginary differences between the two sides. Our negotiating position remains the same as it has been all along.
The right hon. Gentleman made a great deal of play about the alleged difference in wording in respect of the 12-mile limit. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) will back me up when I say that this is the same wording as that used by the hon. Gentleman when he said:
and in particular, maintains the need to secure exclusive access within 12 miles".—[Official Report, 7 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 889.]
The right hon. Gentleman's point is therefore torpedoed by the fact that his hon. Friend used precisely the same words, and he did not accuse his hon. Friend of being any less committed to our aims as a result.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I do not see any sense in trying to settle completely the negotiating position of any Government. I took the same view when the Opposition were in office and supported their fishing policy. However, I seek an assurance that a 12-mile exclusive fishing zone for our fishermen is as sacrosanct to us as it is to Labour Members.

Mr. Younger: I entirely appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I confirm that. I shall go into it in greater detail later in my speech.
The right hon. Member for Craigton also made a great deal of fuss about the absence of the words "dominant preference" in the amendment. That does not appear in the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East to which I have referred. Here again, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would accuse his hon. Friend of being any less committed to this matter. I really believe that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to make bricks without straw. There is really no difference between us.
The motion says nothing about enforcement or marketing, which is important. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about inserts or excerpts in or from the motion and the amendment. He went on at great length about permanency in these arrangements, but there is no mention of that in the motion. He talked a great deal about restructuring but there is nothing about that in his motion. Both the Government and the Opposition can table motions if they so wish and it is not profitable to nitpick over each of the motions to find differences that do

not exist. The reason for the Government's amendment is clear—the Opposition's motion does not include the various important matters that are in the Government's amendment. For instance, there is no mention of consultation with the fishing industry, which we consider to be very important.

Mr. David Myles: Consultations are most important. The fishing industry representatives are the ones who can decide and who know whether any agreement is acceptable.

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right.
I do not see any legitimate way that the Opposition can vote against the Government's amendment. I hope that they will think hard before doing so because it is most important that the negotiations should proceed with the full backing of the House for the British negotiating position. If the Opposition were to vote against the Government's amendment, it would add nothing to the proceedings

Mr. Norman Buchan: Is the right hon. Member saying that his amendment in relation to the limits is the same as our motion? If so, why is he not accepting the words of our motion? He can still do so by withdrawing his own amendment.

Mr. Younger: I shall not waste the time of the House by repeating what I have already said. I know that other hon. Members will wish to speak.
I welcome the opportunity given by the Opposition for reaffirming to the House the Government's determination to achieve a satisfactory settlement of the common fisheries policy that will meet the requirements of our fishing industry. We have made clear in previous debates that we attach great importance to the need for a settled fisheries policy that will enable the industry to plan properly for the future.
We have maintained the closest possible contact with the fishing industry's leaders at all times throughout the negotiations and have kept them fully informed of developments. I pay tribute to the helpful attitude that has been adopted throughout by the leaders of the industry. They could easily have been forgiven for losing their patience with these long drawn-out—and at times frustrating—negotiations. They have resisted any such temptation. My right hon. Friends and I have been grateful for their wise counsel and for the responsible way they have conducted themselves throughout a long and difficult period.
I should now like to review the progress in the negotiations, which are due to resume on Monday in Brussels. Even if progress generally has been disappointingly slow, some useful progress towards an agreed common fisheries policy has been made within the Community during the past two or three years.
It was fantastic to have to listen to the right hon. Member for Craigton saying that a political will was needed to achieve such a settlement. We took over negotiations in which no progress had been made for three or four years. What is more, of the entire Community, which was at that time nine nations, eight were ranged against the British. No agreement had been made—not even tentative agreements on any one of the headings before us. For the right hon. Gentleman, who was party to those negotiations, to tell me that the Conservative Government lack political will is to stretch credibility to its limits.
Towards the end of last year, agreement was reached on a comprehensive conservation regulation. This is largely based on the United Kingdom's own earlier measures and, although we have naturally continued to work to improve on it, it provides the basis for a lasting regime that will do much to preserve and improve the stocks that are vital for the future well-being of our industry. That was an aspect on which there had been no progress whatever when we took over.
Equally important are the steps that have been taken to enforce the conservation and other measures. Here, too, useful progress has been made. The Council of Ministers agreed, in October last year, on the text of a regulation to provide for a uniform control regime in the Community. All this is particularly welcome to us and to the British industry. As the House knows, United Kingdom Governments have repeatedly stressed the need for strong and effective conservation and enforcement measures. Our consistent advocacy of the case for this has been instrumental in persuading our Community partners to agree to it.
The regulation provides in particular for the maintaining of a log book and landings declarations to record catches. It is also proposed that the implementation of these and other measures by member States should be monitored by a small Commission inspectorate. The setting up of such an inspectorate is a matter in which the United Kingdom has taken a lead. I hope that this will ensure the more uniform application of such measures to the fishermen of all member States and allay the suspicions that some countries apply the rules less rigorously than others. This is essential if we are to create an atmosphere of trust. Discussions on the details of the proposals are continuing, and I hope that there will be an early conclusion on the remaining points. This is a second subject on which there had been no progress whatever and on which there is now virtually an agreement.
With regard to marketing, the Council of Ministers agreed in principle at its September meeting to a new basic marketing regulation to take the place of the present one, which dates from 1976. The United Kingdom played a major part in the prolonged and complex discussions that led to the revised regulation. Every hon. Member who was present at those meetings will agree at least on one thing, if nothing else, and that is the outstanding and skilful contribution made by my right hon. Friend as President. It was an outstanding example of successful working in the Community and was widely admired by everyone. My right hon. Friend was very much instrumental in having this important regulation agreed in principle by the Council.
The marketing document is a lengthy and complex one and it would be inappropriate for me to enumerate all the changes, but I should like to highlight one or two of the more notable differences, since the regulation contains several useful improvements in regard to our own industry.
Of great importance to us—following the impact of low priced imports on our markets in the early months of the year—is the new obligation placed on the Commission to react speedily to complaints from member States about imports from third countries coming into the Community below the reference price and disturbing the market. We welcome this as a significant tightening up of present procedures and, once the regulation is in force, we shall

be prepared to use the new machinery wherever it seems to us that the third country imports are having a significantly adverse effect on our markets.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Younger: I am sorry, but no one else will have the chance to speak if I go on for too long.
Other improvements include the addition of two species of importance to us—dogfish and ling—to the list of species covered by the withdrawal price system, and the addition of nephrops and crabs to the list of species eligible for private storage aid. There is also to be a deficiency payment scheme for salmon and lobsters and a carry-over premium to subsidise a limited amount of storage of fish when landings are heavy.
The next step is to prepare the detailed regulations required to implement the new regime. We are pressing the Commission to proceed with all speed on this work. That is a third issue on which there had been no sign of progress and on which we are now virtually at an agreement, apart from a few small details. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at least acquit us of the charge of having gone through the negotiations without making progress, because it does not lie within his power to say that with any credibility.
Hon. Members will agree that the negotiations so far have made some progress. However, much remains to be done, and there are very difficult negotiations to be concluded on the major outstanding issues of quotas, access and structure.
The Commission's current proposals on the quotas and on total allowable catches are contained in documents 8695/81 and 8696/81 respectively. Any quota settlement will be a vital component of a satisfactory overall settlement of the common fisheries policy. It must reflect the special needs of our fishing fleet and its historic performance in the fisheries as well as its loss of opportunities in distant waters.
The suspicions of the right hon. Member for Craigton are wrong and the need for such provisions is included clearly in our negotiating position. The Government are at one with the fishing industry on that aspect and we shall not settle for less. It is important that the mix of species is right so that we are not getting an inadequate share of a species that is important to us and more than enough of a species of less importance.
We also want to make sure that we do not have to go through these complex negotiations each year. There must, therefore, be some acceptable form of staying power for quota shares so that our industry can plan ahead properly. That is in answer to another point raised by the right hon. Gentleman and on which I agree with him.
On access, we have made clear our need for a 12-mile exclusive zone and we shall continue working towards that end. However, as my right hon. Friends and I made clear on previous occasions in the House and to the industry, we may have to take account in the negotiations of some limited historic rights within 12 miles that are of importance to other member States.
In relation to preference beyond the exclusive zone, we are seeking arrangements that would be of benefit particularly to those coastal communities that are heavily dependent on fishing. That was particularly mentioned in the Hague agreement to which the previous Labour Government were a party.
The House will realise that that is a particularly difficult area of the negotiations since other member States regard our objectives as encroaching on their rights under the treaties. Nevertheless, we have consistently made it clear in the discussions that these are essential objectives and that unless satisfactory arrangements can be agreed, we could not regard any settlement as satisfactory.
A permanent structure policy is, of course, also a vital element in any CFP settlement. It is clearly essential that the future United Kingdom fleet should be able to exploit effectively and economically the share of the stocks that will be available to it. The question of structure is, therefore, linked with those of access and, in particular, quotas. For that reason it would be wrong to decide on a structural policy in advance of a satisfactory allocation of quotas agreed by everyone.
There has, however, been much detailed discussion on the broad principles of a Community structure policy. The Commission proposal now under consideration envisages substantial expenditure on this over a period of three to four years. Rather more than half of that would be devoted to providing assistance for the construction and modernisation of vessels. Another important element is the provision of assistance for the permanent scrapping of older vessels. We attach great importance to those two essential prongs of our strategy to ensure that our fleet will in future comprise modern and efficient vessels and that the Community fleet as a whole should be restructured to a size consistent with the fishing opportunites available to it.
Important as the negotiations on the common fisheries policy are, there are, nevertheless, other important issues affecting the industry. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in passing of the economic difficulties that it has gone through and I should like to refer to them. I should have thought that both sides of the House would agree that the Government have given ample proof of their awareness of the difficulties that have been, and still are, facing the industry. Last year, at a time of extraordinary financial difficulty for all sorts of expenditure in Britain—I do not need to remind the House of that now—special aid of more than £17 million was made available and this year we have pumped a further £25 million of aid into the fishing fleet under the fishing vessel temporary support scheme.
By any standard, that is a significant level of assistance, particularly when compared with the total value of the catch of United Kingdom fishing vessels of about £222 million in 1980. I am certain that the leaders of the industry appreciate the support that it has had from the Government over the past two years. I am glad that we were able to do that at a time of great difficulty for the fishing industry.
As the House is aware, negotiations have been taking place in recent weeks on the Commission's proposals for guide prices for fish which were originally set out in document 10710/81. I am well aware of the importance that the industry attaches to the outcome of the negotiations. I am grateful for an opportunity to hear the House's views and to make the Government's position clear. We have consistently said that the Community's institutional prices are too low and should be increased to more realistic levels. The Commission's proposals are, therefore, very disappointing and we have been pressing vigorously for larger increases. I must tell the House,

however, that there has been strong opposition from the Commission and most other member States to going further than the Commission has so far proposed. Nevertheless, we have been pressing for the largest increases that we can secure for the species that are important to us.
Changes in the Community's institutional prices alone are not, of course, the whole answer. Of equal importance is an orderly and efficient distribution and marketing system. It is vital that improvements are made in this area in order to make the industry more competitive, in relation not only to foreign supplies, but to producers of other protein foods. I have been particularly encouraged by the positive response to the report on the marketing of fish that was drawn up recently by the three advisers appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The industry can do a great deal to help itself in that regard and the marketing advisers have pointed the way.
Indeed, from my own frequent contacts with the industry, it is clear that the necessary goodwill exists among the various sectors of the industry to co-operate in seeking a larger share of the market. The recently appointed Sea Fish Industry Authority, which I welcome and wish well, has an important catalytic role to play and is well placed to take it on, given the breadth of experience of its members.
Finally, if I may return to the main theme of the debate, the House can be assured that the Government will continue with all vigour to seek an early settlement of the outstanding issues in the negotiations, but while an early settlement is important to the industry in many ways it would not want us to settle at any cost. We will, therefore, accept a settlement only if it is fair and reflects its legitimate needs. The negotiations will continue to be very difficult, I am sure, but I believe that the measure of agreement already achieved has created a new impetus within the Community to reach a final settlement. I do not think that recent delays have affected the basic impetus and will to conclude the negotiations and I am hopeful that there will be further useful progress at the next Council or soon thereafter.
Meanwhile, my colleagues and I have taken the opportunity in bilateral discussions with the Commission and other member States to reiterate the United Kingdom's position and I am confident that that has helped towards a better understanding of the equity of our case.
The Government attach great importance to the fishing industry on which so many communities round our coast depend. We have stood resolutely by the industry during the most difficult time it has faced over the past few years. We shall fight for it in the negotiations with a determination to get the fair settlement that it feels that it can accept. We have no intention of letting the industry down.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The House should not be unduly influenced by the claim of the Secretary of State for Scotland that what the Government have achieved so far has the enthusiastic backing of the fishing industry leaders, because some fishermen are keeping pressure on their leaders not to agree with anything that might be a sell-out of their interests.
We have heard suggestions that there have been advances behind the scenes, but to most hon. Members the


situation appears to be exactly the same as it was in 1971. There have been assurances that we are getting somewhere, but now time is beginning to run out. The terms of the motion before the House are the absolute minimum that will be acceptable to the Scottish fishing industry. The present situation is totally unacceptable. If any further delay occurs in the negotiations, the Government should fall back—they should have done so before now—on the treaty terms that allow countries to opt out on the basis of overriding national interest. There has been ample justification for the Government to take such a course, on the basis that they were taking up their legal option of the 200-mile limit.
I was sorry to hear the reference of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) to the Shetland plan and his view that the arrangements that would provide a good settlement in this respect might not benefit United Kingdom fishing as a whole. I was relieved that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in an interview some months ago, indicated that the Government had no objection to separate plans for the Orkneys, the Shetlands, the Western Isles and Clyde fishing, and that he believed that the Common Market had no objection in principle to those plans. I hope that those plans will be borne in mind for the benefit of fishermen in these areas that are principally composed of fishing communities.

Mr. Millan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that the Commission has no objection because it is seen as a sell-out of the British position, with everything being abandoned for something that would be suitable for the Shetlands but nowhere else?

Mr. Stewart: I take that point and I hope that the negotiators on behalf of the British fishing industry will bear it in mind. There should be, and I think that there can be, a settlement that takes into account the necessities of the areas that I have mentioned which are largely dependent on the fishing industry.
Legislation should have been introduced to deal with the appalling scandal of pollution of large areas of the Minch and Cornwall by the dumping of fish. The protection fleet should ensure that this does not happen. I do not know the ill effects on prawns and other sea-bottom feeders when the bottom over a large area of the Minches is fouled. It is, however, affecting fresh fish catches, which have been contaminated by the rotten fish lying on the bottom.
The Secretary of State made an ominous remark about rationalising the size of the fleet. It seemed to me to indicate a rundown in the size of the fleet.
I should like to refer to conservation. The Government should be working with the Common Market to ensure that something is done about the method of fishing by purse-seining. In a world of shrinking stocks, it is high time that Governments, not only our own, examined this method of fishing and ensured that fishing was confined to people earning a living and not to those who have become wealthy by the method of purse-seining.
The need for an early solution to the problem is shown by the case of the two German trawlers which were fishing illegally in the Minches in July with the connivance or at least approval of the West German Government. The fine imposed does not augur well for the chances of a fair deal in the negotiations. There has been gross over-fishing of the quotas. This is known. The Government may say that

they would like to receive evidence. The fact is well known. There have been films on television. This has happened not only in our waters but in Norwegian waters. It has reached the stage where Norway may demand that the EEC countries should not be allocated a quota in 1982—an example that the Government should follow. Even allowing for quotas, the question arises of how they will be enforced. What has happened in the past gives no confidence that quotas will be adhered to.
The Government amendment shows a weakening of the basic requirements for anything that would be considered even remotely satisfactory. On the occasion of the Prime Minister's clawing-back of a section of the contribution that we make to the Common Market, a communiquéwas issued which implied that fishing had been abandoned as a separate issue on which the Government were dealing with the EEC. I have been convinced all along that no policy acceptable—

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Has not the right hon. Gentleman heard the Prime Minister and other Ministers make it clear on a number of occasions that the question of fishing is to be settled on its own merits? Will he once and for all recognise that and not simply act on his own suppositions?

Mr. Stewart: The statement to which I refer has never been repudiated by the Government. I am, however, willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. I shall bear it in mind.
I have been convinced all along that no policy acceptable to the EEC countries, our so-called partners, will give our fishermen the deal that they deserve. Our position appears to be one of scaling down our demands. The Government may hope that the long negotiations will make everyone fed up and that they will settle for anything to finish them. The other countries of the EEC can afford to wait. We are close to 1982. Fishing was not taken into account when we entered the Common Market. The other countries needed only to keep their powder dry for 10 years and the issue would fall into their laps. That would appear to be the outcome of the negotiations.
I am pessimistic about the Government's ability to do anything about this situation. There is no reason, however why the motion should not have been accepted. This leads me to believe that the rights of the fishing industry are being scaled down in the negotiations.

Sir Patrick Wall: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will appreciate that the Government amendment is expressed in wider terms than the Opposition motion, and is, therefore, better suited to the industry. Hon. Members will agree that access and quotas are linked. The industry initially asked for a 50-mile exclusive zone and a 200-mile preferential limit. When proper negotiations began the demand was for a 12-mile exclusive zone and a 50-mile preferential limit. The previous Labour Government produced a zig-zag scheme. No one really knew how it would work. Now, however, there is broad agreement that we want, if possible, a 12-mile exclusive zone and a good preference in the 50-mile zone.
Why, therefore, is the debate taking place? I suggest that the answer can he found in the editorial of Fishing News of 27 November, which says:


The warning issued by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to the Government, emphasising the need to stand firm on a 12-mile exclusive limit as part of a Common Fisheries Policy is more than just a protest. It is the first sign that the industry is breaking away from a pact it made with fisheries minister Peter Walker in Brussels, last December.
I believe that the Opposition have seized on this to try to divert attention from their own political difficulties. I agree that the inshore fishermen should have an exclusive 12-mile limit. Our historic rights have been removed from Iceland and Norway and many other parts of the world. Why should we be the only sufferers? I should, however, like to refer to an apt quotation from "Fish Trader" of 5 December. Mr. Leadley, chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, is quoted as saying:
UK vessels have been forced out of other countries' waters, and now our inshore grounds are threatened—there is nowhere else left to go except the beaches!
That is the whole point. If we do not get a settlement by the end of 1982, we do go to the beaches. Time is not on our side. We have, therefore, to compromise. Although we should go 100 per cent. for our exclusive fishing limit, it may be the case that a certain latitude must be left for some of the foreigners in the EEC if we are to get agreement. The choice may be clear—an exclusive limit with a small number of historical limits or no settlement at all. The industry will have to make the choice.
I wish to turn to the question of total allowable catches. Last year's proposals set before the council gave us about 36 per cent. of the seven species and 30 per cent. of all fish. I agree that that is not enough, but I understand that even that amount has been held up by the Danes. Obviously, their general election created difficulties for the negotiating team.
I want to quote the EEC TAC for 1981 in percentages. For the seven species, it was proposed that the United Kingdom should be given 36 per cent. and Denmark 24·1 per cent. For the other species, the United Kingdom was to have 8·6 per cent. and Denmark 31·5 per cent. Of herring, the figure for the United Kingdom was 30·4 per cent. and for Denmark 27·7 per cent. For industrial fishing, the figure for the United Kingdom was 11–7 per cent. and for Denmark 71·9 per cent. All those figures are in cod equivalents.
I accept that it is not true arithmetic to add up all the percentages and compare one with the other, but it would give us some comparison. If one does that, this country gets 86·7 and the Danes get 155–2, yet the Danes are holding up agreement because they are not getting enough cod equivalent. I hope that the Minister will deal firmly with the Danes. I assume that the problem now is that they will take some time in forming a Government because the proportional representation system makes it difficult to form Governments. I hope that the Minister will be as firm as he can, because we must have a greater cod equivalent quota than has been suggested.
There is no mention of marketing in the Opposition motion. Considerable progress has been made, largely due to the efforts of the United Kingdom—for example, in seeing that quicker methods for reference prices are observed by third countries, in revision of tariff arrangements for herring, the encouragement of producer organisations, and extension to other species of fish for producer support. All those improvements have taken

place since this Government came to power, and in my opinion they are largely due to the efforts of this Government.
However, I understand that the EEC proposals for guide prices for 1982 are likely to increase them by only up to 6 per cent. My right hon. Friend will know that this affects both withdrawal prices and reference prices. The industry made it quite clear that it needs an increase of 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. The British Fishing Federation was firm on an increase of 50 per cent. I realise that it is not in the Minister's power to effect these matters, but I hope that he will do everything possible to ensure that withdrawal prices are considerably increased. That would stimulate the rise in first-hand prices, which are essential for the future of the industry. However, they are needed early in the year. The British fishing industry wants increased prices in January and February. Most of the European countries do no need them until the summer, and might try to delay the whole procedure. Moreover, too much fish has come into this market below the official withdrawal prices. The Minister set up an inquiry into this matter, but as he mentioned that in his speech, I shall not dwell on it.
The new Seafish Industry Authority is increasing its levy by about 50 per cent. It is difficult to swallow that increase in our present economic circumstances, but I accept that it is right. It is double the levy that the White Fish Authority imposed in the past. The WFA has gone, but I want to pay tribute to its late chairman, Mr. Meek, who did a great deal for the fishing industry. I think it will be agreed that the WFA's research, training and overseas consultancies were particularly successful.
Conservation regulations and control have been greatly improved—again, thanks to the work of this Government. Great progress has been made. However, licensing and identification of ships at sea are vital, and progress is necessary is this connection. It is vital to be able to distinguish trawlers from the air, and their numbers should be painted so that they are visible from the air.
Inspection at ports is even more important. The EEC has agreed to a certain number of inspectors, but I doubt whether there are enough of them.
Finally, I want to say a word about the distant water fleet. In Hull, it is now down to single numbers, and it has almost disappeared. It is kept going by mackerel fisheries, and as I am sure my right hon. Friend will realise, it is the only thing that is keeping the remains of the distant water fleet going. I understand that my right hon. Friend's powers to license offshore factory ships—Klondikers—has not yet been used, and I hope that he will tell us whether he intends to use those powers.
I remind the House that time is not on our side. December 1982 is not far away. I doubt whether we shall get 100 per cent. of what we want. Industry must make up its mind for or against. I am sure that the Government have already made considerable progress, having already increased the total allowable catch on two or possibly three occasions. I am sure that they will get the best possible result, with a near-exclusive 12-mile limit, and with the best possible preference up to 50 miles. I have every confidence that they will obtain the best possible results for the industry.

Mr. James Johnson: I begin by expressing my amazement at the Minister's


outburst when he rose to speak. I wonder what skippers and deckhands who are at sea catching fish think about a Minister who indulges in such semantic squabbles.
I see little difference between the motion and the amendment to it. However, there is one significant omission from the amendment about third party agreements. I ask Conservative Members to scan the amendment. Those hon. Members who represent Humberside, Fleetwood, Peterhead, Aberdeen and Lowestoft will say that there is nothing in the amendment for them. Ten years ago Hull landed 224,000 tonnes of fish. Now it is not landing any fish, and the amendment envisages no possibility of the Government negotiating third party agreements for a share of fish similar to the quantity we caught in the past.

Sir Patrick Wall: Does the hon. Member agree that the main reason for that is the high prices charged by the docks board in Hull compared with other ports?

Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's interjection is trivial and beside the point. We are to be sacrificed, and I want to say a few words about that.
Whether our motion is a minuet and the amendment is a waltz is of little importance, because there is not much difference between them. Basically they are the same. Conservative Members want a settlement, because they work and speak on behalf of fishermen in their own constituencies, particularly north of the Tweed, just as we on these Benches speak for miners in England. Of course, there are also miners in Scotland and Lanark. I cannot believe that Conservative Members wish to sell out the inshore men. Hence the 12-mile limit—or, indeed, up to 50 miles.
For years, Ministers and Back Benchers from both parties have almost boasted that we are elected to be the salvation of those in the fishing industry. That has been true ever since the Fleck committee in the early 1960s. What has upset the apple barrel, or rather the fish barrel, is this. Since joining the EEC we have been waiting for Godot. However, no Godot has turned up, and now it is too late. There is little more than 12 months left before the inevitable.
I have listened to fishermen in my constituency and I believe that the industry is facing disaster. The cash outflow is cruel to those fishermen who have incurred bank loans. The industry is bleeding and has a major haemorrhage. Yet the Secretary of State spoke blandly and the word "compromise" was used. Our job is not to compromise, but to fight and to do the best that we can for our people. I do not wish to cry wolf too often, but I say that all boats longer than 80 ft. will disappear from the ports that I have mentioned unless the Government do something immediately.
The outlook is grim, but the industry is not at fault. Indeed, it is the innocent victim of events. We are a member of the EEC, yet the Community has been unable to devise an enforceable policy. That is the top and bottom of it. Hull skippers tell me that we may well see the demise of our ports by Easter. The Government claim that they are doing the best that they can in the Fisheries Council and that they are seizing every chance of reaching an agreement. What are our chances? I understand that on 2 January there will be a Belgian chairman to succeed the British chairman. After that the Danes will take over the chair on 1 July. Neither the Danes nor the Belgians are

enthusiastic about giving us what we want. It is an even bet whether the French are better or worse under Mitterrand. Fishermen in the French fishing ports vote Socialist, but are determined to safeguard their corner. Therefore, Mitterrand will pay attention to those votes. It would seem that we have less chance as a result of the French elections.
We must take unilateral action about 12-mile limits and the 12 to 50-mile limit. If we are taken to the court at The Hague, we must fight. With some temerity, I suggest that the Minister must ensure that if we are taken to The Hague we have the Commission behind us. However, the Commission's blessing will take some getting. Our partners, whether Belgian, Danish or French, sit tight while time flies past. Can the Government stave off the seemingly inevitable? Is the Minister at fault? I do not think so. He is a helpless victim of events.
The deplorable state of earnings on the quayside is evident to all. The men are losing money. They have loans and mortgages that they must pay for. I forecast that when there is a check on the balance sheet—perhaps on 2 January—their agents will tell them just how much they owe the bank. They will then be in an awful financial mess. The Government must think now—never mind boasting about the £27 million or £47 million that they have given—about giving those men as much help as possible in the new year.

Sir Walter Clegg: It is always interesting to speak after the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson). This time, he began by complaining about semantics. I hope that I shall not indulge in semantics, because, like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that they are profitless.
My right hon. Friend knows the situation in Fleetwood well, because last week, at the drop of a hat, he received a delegation from Fleetwood. My right hon. Friend has consulted the industry to an extent that I have not seen reflected in any of the other industries in my constituency. Ministers are available at all times. Most importantly, representatives of the industry were able to accompany Ministers to Brussels and to stand alongside them as they tried to reach an agreement. I know that that consultation will continue.
The pattern of Government policy has been to reach a satisfactory agreement for the industry. If the industry is satisfied, the House will be satisfied, but if the industry is dissatisfied, the House will be equally dissatisfied. Long may that policy continue. The situation in Fleetwood reflects many of the problems mentioned in the motion and the amendment.
The pattern on the fleet has changed. Restructuring has already begun. Since being turfed out of Icelandic waters, the size of our inshore fleet has grown substantially and it now lands about 50 per cent. of the total catch landed at Fleetwood. However, we still have an efficient and modern middle-sea fleet. Its size has diminished, but it is still an effective fishing force.
We want the negotiations to produce a 12-mile limit to protect the inshore men. At the same time, it must protect other waters that our middle-sea fleet can fish. Fleetwood cannot survive without both categories of fishermen, particularly in winter when the weather is rough and inshore men cannot go out. Therefore, we need the middle-sea fleet and the catch that it can land. I am worried


that some United Kingdom fisherman may wish to keep out the bigger vessels. That would unbalance the nation's fishing effort. That is what worries me about a box, particularly one to the north of Scotland. Some inshore waters may need protection. For example, my inshore fishermen would like a restriction on the size of vessel fishing the northern part of the Irish sea. They would like beamers banned. In addition, purse seiners are devastating fish-catching methods.
The Government must try to achieve a settlement that fulfils the ambitions of the inshore and middle-water fishermen. I can speak only for Fleetwood, although my points may apply to other ports. In the past three years there has been a struggle to maintain the port's landing facilities and infrastructure. We welcome the money that the Government have injected into the fishing industry. Without such money, we clearly would not have survived. Today, the port is capable of handling fish efficiently.
I think that my right hon. Friend got the message from the delegation that he saw last week. However, in the near future help may have to be given directly not to the catching side of the industry but to the fleets' bases. I hope that the Minister will not close his mind to that aspect.
The debate is short, but I have tried to explain the problems that face Fleetwood. When the Government go to Brussels, they will do their best to achieve a settlement. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. I do not know what will happen when the Danes and the Belgians are in the chair. It is now 11.30 pm and midnight falls at the end of next year. In the coming year there must be a settlement. We must make clear to the Common Market that, if we do not get a fair settlement, we shall bring the Community to a screeching halt.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I came to the debate with the intention not of criticising or attacking the Government, but of strengthening their resolve to stand firm on the issues raised by their own amendment and the Labour Party's motion. However, I must tell the Secretary of State and the Minister that I was quite amazed that they saw any necessity to table an amendment to the offical Opposition motion. The motion covers points that the Government have hitherto accepted.
The Secretary of State said that he believed that some points should be added. There are very few. Had he felt strongly, he needed only to table an amendment adding the items to it. He did not need to table an amendment to leave out everything in the motion and to replace it with a lengthier formula which, by its very length, gives rise to suspicion. If it takes almost twice as long to say the same thing, one inevitably suspects that there is a weakening in the position.
Several hon. Members, including the right hon. Members for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in an intervention, pointed to specific differences between the amendment and the motion. I ask the Minister, and the Secretary of State who is now with us, on what grounds can they possibly vote against the words of the original motion? When we vote it will be to decide whether the original words stand part of the question—in other words, whether the official Opposition's motion becomes part of

the record of the House. I ask the Minister to search his heart and to tell the House how he or any of his right hon. and hon. Friends can possibly vote against those words, especially as he argued in his speech—and I accept the sincerity with which he argued—that his amendment was not intended to detract in any way from the Government's commitment to those principles?

Mr. James Johnson: Unless, perish the thought, having missed out on third party agreement, the Government are happy to see the death of Hull, Fleetwood, Peterhead and Aberdeen. Without the access to those waters that they once had, those towns will no longer be able to sustain their fleets.

Mr. Beith: I want to be brief, but, before turning to my main point, I reiterate my question to the Minister: can he, in all conscience, argue that his right hon. and hon. Friends should vote against the words in the motion? It would be to the disadvantage of the united front that we have genuinely tried to maintain in all fishing debates if Ministers found any necessity to do so. Unless they make some extensive disclaimer, a vote against the motion could reasonably be taken outside the House to be a sign that the Government disagree with the words of the motion.
It is not too late for the Minister to decide that he need not vote against the motion at all. I invite Ministers in all seriousness to consider that course of action, because, from what they have said from the Dispatch Box, they do not disagree with the content of the motion. Let them demonstrate that agreement by not voting against it. The future of the fishing industry is at stake. If Ministers show a determination to abide by conditions that they have accepted in the past and say that they do not wish to vote against the motion, they will do a service to the House.
If Ministers do not relent, I invite their right hon. and hon. Friends to read the Opposition motion and ask themselves how they can possibly vote against a single word of it.
I turn to the issue to which I wish to devote my speech. Many other issues have been raised. I agree that they are important, but I wish to concentrate on one aspect which needs emphasis at this stage of the negotiations. I refer to the 12-mile limit. It is the essential home ground of our inshore fishermen. They are worried for obvious reasons. They are worried because of the danger to the limited stocks within the 12 miles. They are worried because it is within the 12 miles that fixed gear men operate. Fishermen using lobster and crab pots will be severely affected if there is a major incursion of foreign vessels manned by crews who are not familiar with where the gear is situated.
The inshore fishing industry sees the 12-mile limit, in the words of secretary of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations as "our bottom line". It is not the bottom line; it is the sea wall. The 12-mile limit is the barest minimum demand which could be made, and it has been made again and again. I plead with the Government to be firm with that demand in negotiations.
I have put the key question about historic rights to the Government on many occasions. Historic rights claims are being made by other countries, but many of the claims are spurious. I ask Ministers not to accept such claims at face value. I have been worried about the issue since I questioned the Minister about the Government's attempts to assess the validity of historic rights claims. I asked the Minister:


whether he has any evidence that fishing vessels from any European Economic Community country have ever fished for herring within 12 miles of the Northumberland coast."—[Official Report, 20 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 203.]
The right hon. Gentleman said that under the 1964 London convention vessels from the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany were entitled to fish for herring off north-east England and had fished there between January 1953 and December 1962. All the evidence that I have is that the fishing that took place between 1953 and 1962 was 16 or 17 miles off the coast. The Department has not yet found any evidence to the contrary.
In the reply the Minister also referred to the treaty of accession and the six-mile to 12-mile area that was given away at the time that the treaty was made. I hope that the Minister stands by the assumption that the six to 12-mile give-away was one of the unacceptable features of the treaty which it is the object of the negotiations to change. It is as unacceptable as the prospect of fishing up to the beaches in 1982 which was also part of that treaty.
I challenge the Minister to use his Department's resources to assess the validity of claims to historic rights. What historic rights were exercised by beam trawlers, stern trawlers and purse seiners? If he looks at the records he will discover that fishing for herring off the north-east of England, for example, was by drift nets. Will he really allow the Dutch and the Germans to come within 12 miles, where they did not normally fish before, with new fishing methods which could cause immense damage to stocks? Will he really invite the Dutch and the Germans to fish for other species which they have not sought to catch before?
The Minister must not be taken for a ride by claims of historic rights, the basis for which is dubious. Few of the claims can be substantiated. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in a reply to me on another occasion, said that every unreasonable claim anyone could think of had been made at a recent Council of Ministers meeting. I hope that the Minister will take his cue from that robustly sceptical attitude on the part of his right hon. Friend and not assume, as some of his answers imply, that there is evidence to support every claim that every country lays on the table.
There are great dangers to all sections of our fishing industry in proposals by other member countries. I rest my case on the dangers to our inshore industry of any departure from the 12-mile limit and any failure to recover that part of the 12-mile limit which was wrongly lost in negotiations at the time of the treaty of accession. I ask all hon. Members to recognise that the best outcome of today's discussions would be to let the Opposition motion go through, because its words serve to strengthen that resolve.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I welcome the fact that the Opposition have decided to use their sixth allotted Supply day for a debate on the common fisheries policy. It is one of the most important subjects requiring the House's attention. I need not delay the House with the history of the many abortive attempts by successive Governments to secure a satisfactory common fisheries policy, because I wish to devote my remarks to the urgency of its finalisation.
I cannot accept the wording of the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his right and hon.

Friends. I much prefer the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends, which I believe is better described and shows a greater Government commitment. I need not remind the House that the common fisheries policy is one of the most emotive issues in Britain and raises similar emotions in the European Community.
Emotion is generated in Britain, especially in Scotland and in constituencies such as mine—which is one of the largest fishing constituencies in Europe—because it has become a matter of life or death. Entire communities have been driven out of existence during the past 10 years because of the need for conservation and the loss of fishing grounds. That loss was accepted reluctantly by the fishermen on the basis that, in the long term, their earnings would return and that life would go on as before. They believed that there were prospects of even greater earnings and a long-term future for the industry that would maintain the employment of those who have resided in such small communities for centuries. Generation after generation has gone to sea to catch fish and similar generations have remained ashore working in the allied industries to process the fish as it comes ashore.
Very little has come from those hopes, but it is fair to say that the Government have given more cash aid to the industry than any previous Government. The fishing industry now wishes to see an end to the seemingly impossible position, which is deteriorating rapidly. Soon the industry will again present itself to the Government and ask for financial aid, unless the common fisheries policy is finally agreed by the member States to the entire satisfaction of the British fishing industry.
The amendment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right to draw attention to the progress that has been made by the Government in Brussels. It can be argued that the previous Labour Administration failed to secure the finalisation of the common fisheries policy during their term of office. Much of the blame must lie at the door of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who had its finalisation in his grasp during his final months as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. His failure made it all the more difficult for the incoming Conservative Government to go to Brussels with a strong hand in order to get a quick decision.
I am prepared to admit that the blame cannot be attributed only to the right hon. Gentleman who, with his well-known anti-Market stance, did nothing to instil confidence that Britain would be influential in the negotiations. When the Labour Government renegotiated the terms of Britain's entry into the Common Market, they, too, failed to take positive and satisfactory action to gain the completion of the common fisheries policy. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who is now the Opposition spokesman on agriculture and fisheries and who was for some time a Minister in that Department, said in the House some time ago that he could not understand why the Labour Government had failed to renegotiate the common fisheries policy when they renegotiated the terms of Britain's entry to the Common Market. However, that is all history, regrettable though it may be. The only thing that it has proved is that successive Governments—[Interruption.] I am not unaware of the remarks being made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), but I take no notice of such remarks.
The only thing that history has proved is that successive Governments have failed to gain what is essential for the salvation of the fishing industry both onshore and offshore.
The Government are trying to finalise the policy. I wish to pay tribute to Opposition Members for all the support that they have rendered to the Government during the past two and a half years. They know that the crisis in the fishing industry has not been a one-party matter, but is a problem that has been accepted by all hon. Members in the face of opposition from the member States of the Community. In that connection I wish to pay a particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), who have consistently assured Ministers that they are totally behind their efforts to secure the completion of the common fisheries policy.

Mr. James Johnson: We all know the hon. Gentleman for his deep sincerity and passion in defending his constituents. He belongs to East Scotland, quite near to Peterhead and Aberdeen. What does he think about the omission in the amendment of anything to do with third country agreements for ports such as Kingston upon Hull and those in Scotland?

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. The question of third countries is not on the original motion.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose

Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Grimsby in any circumstances.
Although I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West for mentioning the matter, fortunately Peterhead has not suffered much. Of course, I am concerned about other ports that have suffered. However, Peterhead has grown to become one of the largest ports in the United Kingdom.
I congratulated Opposition Members. I cannot say the same about the hon. Member for Grimsby, whose speeches in the House about fishing have done more damage than any other hon. Member's speech. He has a non-constructive approach to the position, despite the problems that abound in the fishing industry in his constituency.
The Opposition motion asks the Government to reaffirm their
commitment to a 12-mile exclusive limit, dominant preference in the 12- to 50-mile zone, effective conservation measures, and catch quotas for the United Kingdom which fully reflect the extent of fishing stocks in United Kingdom waters and the loss of fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom in third-country waters".

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. gentleman voting for the motion?

Mr. McQuarrie: It may be boring to you, but it is not boring to the fishing industry. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Robert Hughes: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman's speech was boring. I asked whether he was voting for the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought I heard the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) referring to me, but I was reading a note at the time. Perhaps he will not do that again.

Mr. McQuarrie: I took it that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made that comment. If he did not, I apologise.
I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition and all Opposition Members will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and all Conservative Members, confirm that a 12-mile exclusive zone is essential. I must make it clear, with my large constituency interest, that nothing short of that will be acceptable to British fishermen.
It must also be the continued aim of the Government to secure a dominant preference for a 12 to 50-mile limit. Access to our waters for other nations must be severely restricted. If necessary, a strict licensing system should be introduced. Licences should be granted only where there is some reciprocal agreement with the other member State.
The question of quotas must be looked at together with conservation, and we must not allow what is happening in the South-West of England to continue. British fishermen are being denied the right to fish for mackerel, while the vessels of other member States continue to fish and to take the catch away to freezer trawlers, which go to foreign ports. The practice denies our fish processing factories the stocks to keep their people employed. Will our fishermen be allowed to fish for mackerel in the South-West? With the devastating cost of fuel, that information should be available before the boats leave my constituency and other parts of the North-East in the hope of making a living during the remainder of December and in January.
I am pleased that there is to be another meeting of fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 14 December. We all sincerely hope that there will be a final breakthrough, but if there is not we must not waver. We must put our vital fishing interests first and foremost. The welfare of our fishing communities must be paramount. An agreed policy must be based on the fact that 68 per cent. of the fish caught in Community waters is caught around our shores. An agreement must also take account of the fact that the 200-mile limit has deprived many of our fishermen of access to traditional grounds.
We must insist on access, quotas, preference limits and enforcement as the bases of agreement to new policy. We must also strongly protect the onshore fishing industry and the fishermen who use the static gear that has been used for centuries.
The Opposition should accept the amendment. The Government are determined to get a fair deal for the fishing industry. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has always said that there will be no sell-out in the renegotiation, and she is totally supported in that by her Ministers and all hon. Members with fishing interests. No one should make the mistake of thinking that, because the majority of Conservative Members believe in the European Community, we would be ready to accept a settlement totally unacceptable to the industry or to the nation as a whole. Over the years our stocks have been looted. We are now in a position to take a measure of control. We have the whip hand and we must use it.
The fishing industry looks to the Government and to Parliament to get the policy settled once and for all. My right hon. Friend and her Ministers are to be congratulated


on the progress so far made, which has in the main received the wholehearted support of the fishing industry. The House—although perhaps the Scottish nationalists will not agree—should accept the amendment without a Division, and show the industry, our people and the European Community that we are at one in our determination to get agreement on a common fisheries policy that will last and that will restore the industry's faith in Parliament's ability to see that justice is done. I commend the amendment to the House and congratulate my right hon. Friend and her Ministers on bringing it forward.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with amazement when the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) said that we have "the whip hand". We have been here before, perhaps in December 1971, when I sought to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9,
for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the failure of Her Majesty's Government to obtain satisfactory arrangements for the British fishing industry in near, middle and distant waters before the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome."—[Official Report, 13 December 1971; Vol. 828, c. 73.]
Ten years have passed, and we have only one year to go before the other fishermen can fish up to our beaches.
I should like to believe that a solution will be reached satisfactory to the interests of our fishing industry, but I know that we shall take what we are given and be grateful if we are able to keep the 12-mile limit with historic rights. The reason goes back 10 years, when the Tory Government accepted an agreement cobbled together by the then members of the Community. At the time of the referendum I and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked the industry where the British lake was and whether it was satisfied with the arrangements for renegotiation. It now finds itself with no lake and no fleet sailing from our major deep-sea ports.
I am brazenly making a constituency speech. In my constituency 831 registered fishermen are unemployed. Let us use the accepted multiple of five to six shore workers—process workers, workers engaged in shipbuilding, riggers and boilermen—for each fisherman. Of the 27,000 unemployed in my constituency nearly 5,000 are connected directly with the fishing industry. That is a measure of the effect of the common fisheries policy on the port of Hull.
It may be argued that the harm has been done because we have been pushed out of Icelandic, Norwegian, Canadian, Greenland and the Faroes waters, but we have 200 miles of sea around our shores in which the fishermen from those countries wish to fish, yet we are not able to bargain directly with third country fishing interests. People are unemployed, many of whom are members of my trade union, because we cannot negotiate third party agreements. That fact does not appear in the Government's amendment.
The Secretary of State complacently tried to measure the Government's success. He mentioned quotas and the registering and recording of catches, but there are no tachographs on fishing vessels and we do not have adequate policing. Catches are under-recorded and the regulations on the size of fish caught are ignored by our Community partners.
We talk about the 12-mile exclusive zone and the 50-mile dominant preference, but what happened to the other 150 miles, from which a great part of the quotas comes? We have gleefully surrendered them. Is not that a sufficient contribution to Community fishing?
Then there are the problems affecting the former deep sea ports, in particular Peterhead, Fleetwood and Hull. We once had over 100 trawlers of 80 ft and upwards sailing out of Hull. We now have fewer than 10. We once had busy quaysides and secondary and tertiary industries based on the fleet; we now have unemployment.
I have continually sought promises from the Government. I doubt whether the Government will get their common fisheries policy, but, if they do, how will they compensate the port of Hull—and Grimsby to a lesser extent, because it has a good inshore fleet? How will they bring jobs back? The deep sea fleet has gone and it will not reappear. We shall not see vessels stacking up one against the other in the William Wright and Albert docks in Hull as we have in the past. What will the Government do? What proposals do they have for jobs, for retraining, and for bringing industry to our areas? We are entitled to claim that our problem arises, not from the recession, but directly as a result of matters over which the people of Hull have no control—a common fisheries policy, for which their heritage was sold by the Heath Government, and the 200- mile limit that they cannot even negotiate in their own interests.

Mr. Myles: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that if we had had a fisheries policy that allowed all the vessels from Hull, Grimsby and all the other ports to fish we could have had a market for all the fish?

Mr. McNamara: We were landing thousands of tonnes of fish in those ports and selling it. We had a prosperous industy. The foundations of the houses in Swanland and Kirk Ella in the constituency of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) were built upon cod bones. Of course, we would have had a market for the fish. We would have had a good, strong industry and one that may have had a little decency and equity for the fishermen. That has gone from my city. Instead, we have unemployment. Young people who would have had jobs and apprenticeships are walking the streets. All their opportunities have gone.

Mr. Myles: Over the last two years?

Mr. McNamara: No, not over the last two years, but over the whole period of this policy. That is why I went back to 1971, when I tried to get an emergency debate on the matter. We are selling our past. There are no safeguards for the fishing industry. That has been proved right by debate after debate over the last 10 years.
Within a year other countries will be allowed to fish up to our beaches, yet the Government are still trying to claim that they have had some success. They have sold all our interests down the river.
If there is one major justification in my area for the Labour Party's policy of seeking to leave the European Community, of seeking to regain control of our economy, of seeking to be made capable of making decisions that are relevant to the people who live in our area and to our constituents, it is the fishing industry. We have seen what has happened as a direct result of entering the EEC. The


people who are the ambassadors and prophets of the Community have done nothing to bring solace, jobs or employment to our area, or to Hull generally.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I am flattered to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was beginning to believe that this was a debate on fishing in Scottish and northern waters, particularly when my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen all represent elegant Scottish constituencies. I was concerned about whether we would talk about the other half of the fishing industry—the inshore fishing fleets around the coasts of this country that are too rarely mentioned in the House.
I wish to comment on three points relating to the Government amendment, which I hope to be able to support. First, what is meant by
a satisfactory revised Common Fisheries Policy"?
The word "satisfactory" needs much explanation, not just qualification. Secondly, I should like to explore a little further the exclusive 12-mile limit, which I thought was clear in the minds of all hon. Members. However, there was some qualification in the Secretary of State's comments. Thirdly, I should like to comment on our ability to enforce the policy if we actually achieve it.
First, we must get an acceptance in the Common Market that we are the premier fisherfolk of the EEC. We must realise that the EEC member States are looking to us for a lead. They are expecting us to give a lead, and they are waiting for us to give a lead. We do not go in as equal members, we go in in a strong position.
In my area of Hastings we have the largest fishing fleet in the South-East—about 44 boats—and we have been conscious of the invasion from Europe ever since 1066. Nowadays trawlers come in overnight to poach in our grounds. The problem is not simply the detail of what is happening night by night in the South-East, but the fact that in their motion the Opposition have introduced a note of dissension in what has always been a common attitude to fisheries policy in the House. During the last 10 years hon. Members on both sides of the House have always tried to reach a common approach to the fisheries policy.

Mr. Millan: rose—

Mr. Warren: No, I shall not give way because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate.
I ask the Opposition to consider the fact that they have introduced a note of dissension, which is unfortunate.
If we get the agreements that I believe both sides of the House want, can they be enforced? We have problems these days on net sizes, catch quotas, the times of fishing, and beam trawling. At present, the people on the other side of the Channel cannot enforce their own restrictions. What hope have we that they will do anything just because we have signed a common fisheries agreement?
On the last day of office of the Conservative Government in 1974, my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House declared to the House that beam trawling would be banned. We have moved far too slowly in trying to get to grips with the way in which we would enforce a common fisheries policy.
On the issue of the 12-mile limit, I understood my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say earlier, in answer

to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett), that there would be no qualification and that 12 miles was sacrosanct. I understood him to say later that there could be certain places where, for historical reasons, the 12-mile limit could be invaded. I hope that in his reply he will return to a clear declaration that the 12—mile limit is sacrosanct all around our coasts. If it is not, the inshore fishing fleet has nowhere else to go. I counsel my right hon. Friend to realise that what the other Europeans want from our fishing grounds is our fish and then to say goodbye. They have taken, whenever they have had the chance, whatever fish they could grab from us because we do not have the ability even now to enforce control over our grounds.
The inshore fishermen have nowhere else to go. They have small ships operating over limited areas—traditional and historic fishing grounds. The death of their fishing grounds will be the death of their jobs. I am afraid of the strengh of the advocacy of the people across the Channel. The Government have still not realised that the French and the Belgians, having destroyed their own grounds, are now seeking the legalisation of their invasion of our grounds through a common fisheries policy.
We must realise that the inshore fishermen have only these jobs and these livelihoods—and they are seeking to catch our fish. Why should we say that they are our fish? We do not have any disagreements in the House or in the EEC about whether we should share out German or French iron or coal deposits. We do not have arguments about whether we should share out Danish, Dutch or Belgian butter. Why should they be allowed to catch our fish? Why do we not have arguments about their ability to take our North Sea oil? Why should we even consider allowing them to take our fish from us? It is nonsense that our partners in the Community have any rights greater than ours.
The Government must listen to their advisers in the House, rather than to the advisers outside, who do not show the courage on land that our fishermen display each day at sea. The common fisheries policy must be the maintenance of our present rights, jobs and industry.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is curious to hear the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) criticise the Opposition for striking a discordant note in the motion, which simply reaffirms the basic principles that the House has confirmed in the past which are the basis of our negotiating position.
Will the Minister say why the words
quotas … which fully reflect … the loss of fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom in third-country waters, as the essential requirement
have been omitted from the Government's amendment? For ports such as Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood, those quotas are essential not only for the local argument but for the national argument.
Britain has a stronger case than any other country for preferential treatment because of the losses that it sustained in distant waters during the mid-1970s. It is an important issue for Grimsby and Hull. Why have the words to which I referred been omitted? Our fear is that it is to prepare the ground for dropping that requirement as part of the negotiations. The quotas that we have been given do not reflect our losses in distant waters. I hope that the debate will serve as a warning to the Government that


the concessions that have been made in the continuous process of negotiating against ourselves have gone far enough.
At the outset of the negotiations the House clearly confirmed that it wanted conservation measures in waters up to 200 miles, dominant preference in waters up to 50 miles, and a 12-mile exclusive limit. We have been retreating in the negotiations. We appear to be negotiating away even the exclusive 12-mile limit. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has made it clear that it wants an exclusive 12-mile limit, or nothing. That does not include historic rights.
Once we concede the principle of historic rights, how do we police them? What is to stop vessels coming into our waters and taking what they want on the ground that they are exercising historic rights? I know that that is an important issue on the south and south-west coasts because of the activities of French fishermen. It is also important on the Yorkshire coast where German fishermen catching herring are exercising their historic right. That is potentially disastrous for our industry. I am delighted that, at last, a battered, bemused and betrayed industry is standing up for itself and saying "Thus far and no further". An exclusive 12-mile limit means no erosion of that principle.
There has been a series of negotiations against ourselves. We have exchanged national conservation measures—which the Conservative Party manifesto said would be used to bring pressure in the negotiations—for unsatisfactory Common Market agreements. We have given up dominant preference in waters up to 50 miles. That has been reduced simply to surveillance zones, even though the Conservative Party manifesto talked about preference zones. All that is left is the exclusive 12-mile limit. That, also, was included in the Conservative Party manifesto. I am worried about its future, because the other items in the manifesto have been sold.
The negotiations are becoming a piecemeal series of sell-outs, with disastrous consequences for the industry. The Government are bringing in not a Trojan horse, but a Trojan horse kit form—bit by bit. There have been concessions on marketing, quotas and conservation. When, eventually, the Trojan horse is fully assembled and the Government say to the industry "Take it or leave it", the industry will be in a difficult position. I hope that, even then, it will leave the Trojan horse. It will probably be a Trojan camel—a horse designed by an EEC committee.
There has been great trumpeting about the basic marketing agreement. The guide price has been increased by between zero and 6 per cent., which is wholly inadequate. It bears no relationship to costs, market sales or the state of the industry. All we have achieved from the agreement is a marginal improvement in the system. Next January, as last January, we shall be faced with a flood of imports. They will decimate the price in the market. People will ask the Government to do something about it. The Government were asked to do something last January. A decision on action was taken in June and brought into effect in August. That will be the pattern again. Even if the marketing framework is in force in January, it will be too slow. The Commission has no need to act. It can rule against the complaint. It must consult the fishing management group. By the time the machinery is invoked, the threat will have passed because the market disruption will be over in four months from the first incursion.
Ministers threw away the Canadian negotiating coin which would have brought pressure on the Germans, whose views on price were crucial. Their position had to be eroded, yet we threw away the means to bring pressure on them. We did so for the price of 20,000 tonnes of cod fillet, most of which will come back to the British market through the displacement factor. It will displace fish that would otherwise be sold on the Continent.
We have entered the negotiations in the spirit of boy scouts with tied hands. Britain enforces the rules, not the other countries. We have made concessions and played fair. We should be following the example of the French and the pressure that they brought to bear in the lamb war. That worked and gave them the deal that they wanted. They are using exactly the same tactics on molluscs. There is now a total ban on the importation of molluscs.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the agreement on lamb was not a good deal for United Kingdom farmers, consumers and New Zealand?

Mr. Mitchell: The essential question in the lamb war was how to get Britain's lamb into France. How much goes to France now? I suspect that it is very little. It is a good deal for French farmers, because their prices have risen. The French have achieved what they wanted. Britain wants a good deal from the common fisheries policy. We should use similar tactics.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the exporters of lamb to France. He should check his facts before he comes to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be a chance later for the Minister to reply to the debate. I am hoping to call other hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Mitchell: The Minister cannot deny that the French achieved exactly what they wanted. They achieved a good arrangement for themselves at the price that they wanted. That was the essential requirement. We have tied our hands in the negotiations. We have failed to use the legitimate negotiating pressures—which are part of the tactics of negotiations in the Common Market—to save the vital interests of our industry. If we do not use those pressures, why do we not seek to remove the pistol that is pointed at our heads in the argument about fishing up to the beaches in January 1983? Why are the Government not negotiating with the Commission for a statement that its understanding is that the present arrangement continues after 1983? The industry believes that the Government want that negotiating pressure to bring pressure on the industry. There is fear that the Continentals will fish up to the beaches. Why are the Government not negotiating with the Commission to remove that pistol that is pointed at our heads?
The negotiations appear to be a process of concession after concession. That fills us with fear about the final agreement. The industry is slowly, painfully and agonisingly sinking into debt. The aid is inadequate. The Minister should increase the aid package. The new French Government have increased their aid to their industry. The Grimsby industry during the past year has been kept going only by the marginal aid that the Government have conceded.
We also face continuous pressure from the British Transport Docks Board which is taking back the aid that the Government are providing and increasing levies on a


diminishing base of productive capacity in exactly the same way as the Government's economic policy has been applied to the ports.
There is a need for an increase in aid and a commitment that aid will continue to be made available to keep the industry going. It is essential that the Government pledge themselves to the fundamental principle—it is the only part of the package that has not been sold—of an exclusive 12-mile limit with no concessions.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I shall direct my remarks primarily to the requirements of West Country inshore fishermen. I wish to focus attention on two specific aspects: first, the need to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit as part of any future common fisheries policy, and secondly, the need for conservation.
Before mentioning each aspect in turn, I shall make a general observation about CFP negotiations. The 10-year derogation comes to an end at the end of December 1982. We all know the unsavoury background that led to the derogation being necessary. Should difficulties arise during the final 12 months of the derogation, the United Kingdom Government must not fall into the trap of agreeing to something that falls short of their legitimate requirements and rights. We must get the terms of a revised common fisheries policy correct, however long it takes.
I turn to conservation and the related need for effective measures. As an example, I refer to the experiences with mackerel that have taken place in the coastal waters off Devon and Cornwall this autumn. The Minister of State was obliged to suspend the fishing in the area ahead of schedule last weekend. I wholeheartedly support my right hon. Friend in his action. The mackerel season in the South-West opened later and there were smaller quotas. The total catch was soon in excess of the notional figure used by the Ministry and the size of the fish caught seemed to get progressively smaller week by week.
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend's decision created difficulties, not least for the larger trawlers, which, since the dramatic reduction in distant water fishing grounds, have been obliged to come to the South-West's mackerel fishing area in recent years. The processors were adversely affected as their consistency of supply has been threatened. But to those who may, for whatever reason, be critical of the decision, I remind them of the experience of the old Looe fishermen, who repeatedly tell us that in their younger days herring was the dominant fish and that it came and it went. Later the same applied to the pilchard. Since the mid to late 1960s the dominant fish has been the mackerel. It is the practical judgment of the Looe fishermen that there is a danger of their mackerel going. That illustrates the need for effective conservation measures, which, in turn, mean realistic quotas that are sensitive to changing circumstances and adequate policing and monitoring. The United Kingdom Government must not surrender any sovereignty in respect of their responsibility for administering and implementing conservation measures.
Finally, I turn to the important issue of the exclusive 12-mile coastal band and the associated question of historic rights. The House will know that the French have considerable historic rights off the coast of Devon and

Cornwall, the Belgians less so. I advise my right hon. Friend that local fishermen and local public opinion feel strongly that historic rights should be eliminated as part of any fishing settlement.
As my right hon. Friend knows from his visit to Looe in my constituency, West Country fishermen feel extremely vulnerable. The French have exhausted their coastal fishing waters and no doubt they look eagerly at the prospect of being allowed to continue fishing in our coastal waters, including off the coast of Devon and Cornwall.
The importance of fishing to the economy of the South-West, especially to rural coastal settlements is significant. Only the combination of effective conservation and the maintenance of an exclusive 12-mile coastal zone will ensure that fishing continues to contribute in a positive way to regional and local economies.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood that the Front Bench replies were to begin at 20 minutes to seven o'clock. That is the information that came to me.

Mr. Buchan: Thank you very much for that information, Mr. Speaker. I regret to say that it is new information to me. May I ask when the debate will finish if the Front Bench replies commence at 20 minutes to seven o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: That depends on how long the two Front Bench spokesmen take. If they go on too long, they will take time out of the next debate.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I assure the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) that I shall not detain the House too long. I know that hon. Members are anxious to proceed to the next business.
I support much that has been said by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks). Social Democrats generally are extremely sympathetic to the hon. Member in these matters as in others.
The Government have behaved in a somewhat puzzling fashion in seeking to divide the House on an issue which previously has been dealt with by the House on a united front. Why have they adopted this approach to what we hope will be the final negotiations to relieve the industry of its legitimate anxieties? Why have they chosen to depart from the form of words chosen by the official Opposition, which reflects precisely the views that have been expressed by successive Governments and the targets for negotiation with the Community? It will not do for the Minister to say that his amendment encapsulates the essence of the Opposition's motion. That is simply not the case because his proposal is different in two important respects. The Government amendment refers to:
preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities".
That is a clear watering down of the language in the Opposition's motion, which refers to a
dominant preference in the 12 to 50-mile zone".
What do the Government mean by the phrase "particularly dependent fishing communities"? Does it mean those communities where there is no alternative industry to


fishing? If that is so, there must be a poor lookout for the town of Peterhead, for example. As we all know, Peterhead is enjoying a boom from the oil and gas industries. Is Peterhead's fishing to be sacrificed by the Government?
It is also a watering down of the Opposition's motion to speak of
adequate quotas for the United Kingdom".
What are adequate quotas? The Secretary of State for Scotland in opening the debate, gave no clue as to what the Government regarded as "adequate", whereas the Opposition motion makes clear the basis on which the adequacy or otherwise of the quotas is to be tested.
I make it plain that for the Social Democrats as, I believe for the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the adequacy of the quotas at least will depend on their being substantially greater than those in the European Commission's current proposals. In a letter sent to hon. Members on both sides by the President of the Federation, Mr. Gilbert Buchan, it was made plain that the proposals would allow the United Kingdom only 36 per cent. of the seven principal species, which would be less than our historic share. Indeed, the Federation's own proposal of 36·07 per cent. cod equivalent is also less than our historic share, without taking into account the preference that we should receive under the Hague agreement and the compensation for loss of long-distance fishing. Mr. Buchan concluded that
there is no way that the United Kingdom must accept less".
In replying to this short but extremely important debate, will the Minister of State assure the House that he is not prepared to go beyond what the Scottish Fishermen's Federation stated to be its bottom line on quotas?
Will the Minister of State also say what is the Government's position on the zone between 12 and 50 miles? Here again, the Government amendment contains weasel words which seem to mark a considerable departure from the negotiating posture previously adopted. I endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) about historic rights and need not repeat it.
On guide prices, we heard rather chilling remarks from the Secretary of State for Scotland, who warned that the Government had already encountered nothing but opposition to their proposals. Here again, let it be placed on record precisely what at least the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is asking for, that is,
increases in official withdrawal prices of the order of 25 per cent. for 1982 and also in reference prices.
Given the collapse in prices experienced by the industry in the past year, that is the absolute minimum and the House cannot regard anything less as acceptable.
Finally, on structure, the Secretary of State referred to the need for marketing and promotion. Will the Minister of State tell us why, in bringing forward their proposals for the Sea Fish Industry Authority, the Government deprived it of the £380,000 available for promotion to its predecessor, the White Fish Authority? For the Government to make statements about the importance of marketing and then to deprive the authority of finance for promotion is inexplicable and inexcusable.

Mr. Alex Pollock: I accept the Government's argument that we may have to hasten slowly in trying to achieve a common fisheries policy

because of problems with other member States. Nevertheless, I wish to suggest two important interim commitments that the Government should reaffirm today.
First, pending any settlement, we must make clear our determination to maintain a viable inshore industry that will be able to take advantage of any settlement when it comes. If that involves further temporary financial aid, the Government should make clear today their preparedness to listen sympathetically to any requests for such further aid. The fishermen in my constituency do not enjoy going cap in hand to the Government. It is not their style, but I fear that at present they have little choice.
Secondly, in speaking to the amendment, the Government have argued that they have the political will necessary to achieve a settlement adequate to protect our national interests. I trust that they will also retain the political will to take any other national measures that may be deemed necessary—for example, on quotas and access—to protect our home fleet, pending any settlement. I stress particularly in that regard that in the absence of an agreement the Government must not allow political initiatives that properly lie with us to be taken over by the European Commission. That is a highly dubious activity that should be firmly resisted.
If the Government can give assurances on those two preconditions, I believe that the industry will recognise that as tangible evidence of the Government's determination to support it in the difficult times which lie ahead.

Mr. David Myles: I am grateful to have five minutes in which to speak, although I may take even fewer. The arguments made in today's debate have been repeated on many occasions.
The Government amendment encapsulates almost everything—I stress the word "almost"—contained in the Opposition motion and makes some very necessary additions that will secure the "seven Cs" that I once said were required for the fishing industry. By that, I do not mean that it must fish over the seven seas, but that it requires seven conditions. I shall repeat them again today.
The industry requires catches, and it requires waters with adequate stocks of fish for it to catch. It requires cash for that fish through the marketing initiatives set up by the Government. It requires control. This applies to our own as well as to European fishermen. I sincerely hope that control will be a top priority in any agreement.
The industry also requires co-operation in the different sectors of the industry and in the regions and the districts. It is no use playing one against another, as the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is wont to try to do, and destroying the purse seiners when that is the most efficient way of catching pelagic fish.
Construction is also an important requirement. The boatbuilding yards in the North-East of Scotland must be kept in business so that vessels coming into port can be adequately repaired.
Lastly—

Mr. Maclennan: There are two more.

Mr. Myles: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to finish. The last and most important requirement is confidence. The fishing industry desperately needs confidence to look ahead and to go on into the future. I do not believe that it would obtain that confidence from a


split, mixed-up Opposition who do not know whether to stay in the Common Market or come out of it. It is impossible to know what kind of fishing policy might then obtain. I therefore plead with the Minister to go ahead and to achieve a policy that will give the fishermen of Scotland and of Britain as a whole confidence in the future.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am told by my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) has already missed one "C". Perhaps he has given that one up for lost. He says that he approves of the Government amendment because it includes things that are missing from the Opposition motion. There is a simple solution to that. Why did not the Government make those additions but retain all the proposals in our motion? That is not what the Government have done.
I hope that we shall agree on two matters today. The first follows from the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Whatever else may be said about the Common Market, it has been a disaster for the development of British fishing. Secondly, in tabling their amendment, the Government have done a gross disservice to the fishing industry. I believe that those two points are acceptable to the entire House, and I hope that the Government are not so foolish or harmful to the British fishing industries as to suggest that Conservative Members should vote against our motion.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that if they did so, it would sow doubts in the industry and confirm to the people with whom we are to negotiate in Brussels that the Government are a soft mark. Both things would be disastrous.
The firm view seems to be that the problem we now face has been posed by the tabling of the Government's amendment. I would have liked to refer to other aspects of the fishing industry because I have been involved with it for a long time, but, because of the Government's action, we must try to clarify the situation. The best way to do that would be for the Government to support the motion.
For example, the Secretary of State went to great lengths to pretend that where it mattered the amendment said the same as the motion. That was quite nonsensical. He said that similar amendments had been tabled in the past, and cited the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). He pointed out that it referred to preferential access within 12 to 50 miles and, more important, to losses incurred in third country waters.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend to strengthen a weak motion that had been tabled by the Government. All they had to say was that they wanted support for their objective of a satisfactory overall settlement of the CFP. Indeed, that attempt to strengthen that motion was accepted by the Government. To attempt to portray it as a weakening of the position pushes the rules and laws of debate a little far.
There was some support for the Government. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) supported them in a strange way. He said that they had the

whip hand. He could have fooled me. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) pointed to the truth when he said that there was half an hour left to midnight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said that a Standing Order No. 9 application in December 1971 dealt with the same issue. That debate was about the 10- year derogation, which is what we are now facing. Far from the Government having a whip hand, with each day that passes they are in a weaker position to obtain the aims of our motion which, up to now, we believed were firmly believed in by both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East said that the Government had the whip hand and should use it. He said that we should congratulate the Government on what they had achieved. The hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister and her colleagues had to be congratulated on what they had achieved, but went on to say that the situation was deteriorating rapidly. That is an astonishing form of compliment, but the hon. Gentleman is extremely good at such compliments. For example, he was also in a complimentary mood when, with the same justification, he said:
I congratulate my three hon. Friends on their brilliant performance in Brussels yesterday. … Even though they were unsuccessful, it was a brilliant performance."—[Official Report, 28 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 990.]
That is the best that the Government can get in the way of support both for their amendment and the speech defending it today. With friends like that, they do not need many enemies.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East and others, including the Government Front Bench, suggested that all of this was due to the intransigence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), on the grounds that he could have finalised the issue. Of course, anyone could have finalised the issue. The question is "At what cost?". As the Government have failed to stand up to their European partners on access and limits—in fact, sometimes it resembles a cockpit rather than a Common Market—so it becomes more difficult to achieve a settlement with each day that passes.
Although the hon. Gentleman was unable to find the quotation, he reminded me that I had said that I could not understand why the Labour Government did not renegotiate the terms. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the context in which that was said. That was said in 1974–75, when I had left the Government, during the preparation of the renegotiations for the referendum discussion. That was the context and it was right.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said he agreed with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), who referred to the rather unsavoury circumstances of the derogation. They were indeed unsavoury. Ten years were given, and the veto was placed firmly in the other camp. We had no means of exercising our veto to protect our interests. It could only be exercised to destroy our interests.
It was even more unsavoury than the hon. Gentleman thinks, because the Government succeeded in hoodwinking many of their own supporters, including the old pike himself, Bob Boothby of Aberdeenshire. It was indeed unsavoury, and we are now paying the penalty. We must understand that on this issue at least our entry to the EEC has meant that we have given away one of our major assets—the possibility of a 50 or 100-mile fishing limit for


Britain—[HON. MEMBERS: "A 200-mile limit."] I am trying to be helpful. I am looking for a compromise. I remember Nye Bevan saying that only an idiot could ruin this country when it was built upon coal and surrounded by fish. The Government are now the idiots, because they are fiddling while the situation is deteriorating.
I should like to examine the specifics of the Government amendment, which it is said adds to the motion. They have certainly included qualifications. Has that added to the motion? They say that
such a policy must maintain the need to secure an exclusive 12 mile limit".
Commenting on what we say about a 12 to 50-mile zone, they refer to
preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities".
What in heaven's name do they mean by that, and what in heaven's name is the purpose of saying that it adds to the motion? They have weakened the case disastrously. They say that we can exercise this interest only in the interests of a particular fishing community. Which community is that? Is it Grimsby? Is it Merseyside? That has had a hammering. Is it the Shetland Islands? If so, what happens to the rest of the British fishing industry? As was pointed out, it may be thought that Aberdeen does not need such help because of the presence of oil. That is a disastrous addition, which the Government claim strengthens the motion.
Something might have been achieved out of the wreckage had the Government amendment referred only to "dependent fishing communities", but to add the word "particularly" underlines the extent of their sell-out. My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) described it as a piecemeal sell-out. It is more like a fishmeal sell-out.
The amendment also refers to "adequate quotas", and the Government argue that that is also an addition to the motion. What are adequate quotas? The Government might have reminded our Common Market partners that two-thirds of the waters and fish are ours Because of that, 66⅔ per cent. would be a reasonable quota on which to start arguing, rather than speaking of "adequate quotas".
The Government have missed out two salient factors. They are in the business of adding to our motion but the 50-mile limit is missing from their amendment. The Minister said that the question of the third country loss and the effect of the loss of our Icelandic waters was missing. That is true but the motion refers to
the loss of fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom in third-country waters as the essential requirements.
Therefore the Secretary of State was wrong.
However, even if the Secretary of State had not been wrong, he overlooked the one overriding factor of the approach of 1982 and an end to the derogation. The fishermen are clearer than that. The Secretary of State advised us to consult the fishermen. We did—I met them a week ago. It was because we consulted the fishermen that we worded our motion as precisely as we did. We want
commitment to a 12-mile exclusive limit".
That is not a 12-mile limit hedged around with historic rights of one kind or another. The Government did not even put in their amendment that historic rights must be phased out. However, we put it in our motion clearly and precisely, and for the Government to oppose our motion will be a signal to Europe that it can push them over even more.

The fishermen have said that the 12-mile limit was their bottom line. They said:
Alarum bells on the access question began ringing around the industry when it became known that a document invoking the Hague agreement and preference areas would be on the negotiating table at … the talks set for Brussels on December 14th.
Is the preference area to be on the negotiating table? Is that what the talks are to be about next week, and not about a fight for the 12-mile exclusive zone and the 50-mile dominant preference, which it should be?
The Hague preference areas, where 12-mile limits apply, take in most of the Scottish west coast, the Northumberland coast, and the Yorkshire coast down to Flamborough Head. The Opposition are not only concerned with the Scottish waters and the waters down to Flamborough Head. The fishermen of both sides of the border are saying that they want and need—and that the industry requires—the 12-mile exclusive limit. That is what the Opposition motion says, that is what the House has hitherto agreed, and the Government would put that at risk if they were foolish enough to recommend Conservative Members to vote against our motion tonight.
I point out to the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) that it was not the Opposition who introduced dissension. We have tabled a motion setting out a policy that has been understood by the House for years. The Government have chosen to move against it. It is the Government who have lost the opportunity of having a united House of Commons behind them when they go to Brussels. They have thrown away one of their biggest weapons. No amount of semantics from the Secretary of State for Scotland can compensate for that stupidity.
The hon. Member for North Fylde said that there was half an hour to midnight. I plead with the Government even at this late stage to support the Opposition motion, to go to Brussels armed, to listen to the industry, to fight for the 12-mile exclusive limit and for the proper dominant preference over the 50 miles, and to save something out of the wreckage even now.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I start by welcoming the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) to the Front Bench. This is the first time he has spoken since he took over his responsibility. I also pay respect to him personally. I know of his great interest in the fishing industry, which stems from his family connections and experience over the years. However, I cannot be certain that his service on the Front Bench on this occasion will be any longer than it was when he was last on the Front Bench speaking on these matters. Over a relatively short period he found it difficult to agree with the policy of his Front Bench colleagues. Only time will tell whether he will disagree with the Labour Party's policies, although they are even more uncertain now than they were when he was last on the Opposition Front Bench.
I have been asked several specific questions on important matters affecting the fishing industry. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned the mackerel fishery, particularly in South-West England. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) that I was aware that when I closed that fishery, problems would be faced not only by his


fishermen but by the processors. However, the stocks of mackerel in the South-West were being put at risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) reminded me.
At the start of the fishery we made plain that it was liable to be a much shorter one this year than in previous years. All the evidence showed that the catch that should have been taken would be exceeded and the quality of fish was low. In those circumstances, in spite of the difficulties this year, it was necessary, if we were to be able to continue fishing in future years, that the fishery should be closed. I have taken note of what was said about the fishery early next year. I hope that my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall), will be reassured by my remarks. We shall be having discussions with the industry on Friday this week on the arrangements for next year. We shall not delay in letting the fishermen know what the arrangements are. I appreciate that they have to know in order to plan their activities.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice that we have been watching closely this year the mackerel fishery and the activities of the Klondikers. We have powers in relation to licensing and once we have assessed our experience of this year's fishery we shall look not at the fishery in the early part of the year, but at the main fishery which starts in the summer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice also referred to the matter of guide prices for 1982, as did other hon. Members. This is a vital matter for the fishing industry and affects its economic viability. In the negotiations in Brussels the Government will fight as strongly as they can for the best possible deal, although if other countries and their industries are supporting us in this the message is not getting through. The negotiations for guide prices are proving a hard struggle, but I shall bear in mind the hon. Member's remarks.
The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) raised the problems of the deep-sea fleet or the middle-distance fleet. This matter was put to me by the delegation that I met last week, and I can assure hon. Members that I am aware of the problem, and of the anxieties of that part of the industry. However, to blame the problems of that industry on the common fisheries policy is flying in the face of the facts. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central cannot get away with that.
When speaking of the Opposition motion, which, referred to a preference in the 12 to 50 mile zone, the hon. Member asked "What about the other 150 miles?" When the United Kingdom negotiated entry to the European Community it did not have a 200-mile limit. However, when the Labour Government renegotiated terms of membership the 200-mile limit was coming up. As far as our outer limits were concerned, we had already passed this through the House of Commons at the time of the Hague agreement in 1976. If it was such an important matter then, that is when it should have been raised, and the objections should be addressed to those Labour Members who were involved at the time. [Interruption.] It is typical of Labour Members to say "But it is not our fault". The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West this evening tried to make the same excuse—that he was not

responsible at the time when these matters were negotiated; he had resigned. It shows the total irresponsibility of the Labour Party's approach.
Labour Members like to say the things which appear to be politically popular and which are easy to say, but when the Labour Party was in power it did not try to ensure that those policies were carried out. It could not be better exemplified than by the speech of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He said that the arrangements for lamb were a disaster and that no United Kingdom lamb was going into France. That is demonstrably untrue. He showed no more knowledge when he spoke of fish.

Mr. Buchan: The Minister makes allegations about Labour Members saying one thing when they are in power and another when they are not in power. Will he recall the circumstances in which we were bound to the present limits? The Common Market put through its own fisheries policy within days of the vote in favour of our joining the Common Market, and the matter was disguised by Conservative Ministers. From that point on we were faced with that policy decision.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The matter was not disguised at any time by Conservative Ministers, whatever the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West may say.
The hon. Member for Grimsby—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] The hon. Member's interest is shown by the fact that he is not present to hear the answers to his points. The hon. Member completely misunderstands the realities. Although the matter was not mentioned by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Grimsby said that the Government should be introducing national conservation measures up to 200 miles. He completely ignored the fact that our right to introduce and enforce national measures was given away in the Hague agreement of 1976 by the Labour Government.
I remind the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that it was the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who now graces the SDP Benches, who had responsibility at the time in question. It is easy to pass on responsibility to other people without having to worry about dealing with the problem oneself.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) tried yet again to criticise the reopening of the herring fishery and completely ignored the fact that the Labour Government of which he was a member gave away our right of enforcement.
The debate has centred on the question of the exclusive zone. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned historic rights. These are, however, historic rights as defined in international agreements. If we could have a word together, I could perhaps explain precisely to him the meaning of historic rights.
As my right hon. Friend said, it is our objective in the negotiations—as it always has been—to secure a 12-mile exclusive zone, but equally, as my right hon. Friend and I have said before in this House, within that objective we may in the negotiations have to consider the historic rights of other countries. I give the hon. Member the absolute assurance that there will be no question of our considering rights that are spurious or unexercised. We are not as silly as to think of anything such as that. I have made the position absolutely clear to the House. I did so in the


debate in May last year. I have constantly made the position clear to the industry. It has been made public and is well known.
The right hon. Member for Craigton referred to an exclusive zone and also mentioned historic rights. To be fair, he said that those historic rights should be phased out, but the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West missed out that part. He said that there would have to be an exclusive zone and nothing else. It is clear that the right hon. Member for Craigton agrees that the matter of historic rights has to be considered in negotiations.

Mr. Millan: There is nothing between us on this. When will the Minister tell the House why he is advising his hon. Friends to vote against our motion, which represents the agreed position, up to the present, not only of the offfical Opposition but of the whole House, including the Government?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Nothing said in the debate has persuaded me that the Government were not correct in tabling their amendment. The Opposition have used the debate simply as an occasion for attacking the EC as a whole and for making political capital for their own advantage.
The right hon. Member for Craigton was totally unprepared to give any recognition to what has been achieved in the negotiations. He spoke of a lack of political will, but Conservative Ministers have fought harder than anyone on these issues. He spoke as though there had been no progress whatever, yet when the Labour Party left office the United Kingdom Government stood against eight other Governments. That position has been completely turned round, so that the majority of EC countries now believe in the correctness of our approach. The position has been turned from one of disadvantage to one of advantage for Britain and the fishing industry. The right hon. Gentleman in his typically grudging manner, was not prepared to admit that conservation measures now apply on a European-wide scale and protect the livelihood of our fishermen. Similarly, the marketing regulations protect our markets and give our fishermen more protection. None of that is mentioned in the Oppositions's motion. For those reasons, it is right that we should mention them in our amendment.
On the crucial matter of the exclusive zone, I ask the Opposition why they have changed their wording. My right hon. Friend, at the beginning of the debate, explained that the words in the Government amendment are similar to those used by the Opposition when the matter was last debated.
One of the most important aspects is whether we have a satisfactory relationship with the fishing industry. It is the fishing industry and the fishermen's livelihoods that matter. Throughout all the negotiations we have taken the industry with us, and we shall continue to discuss matters with them. For that reason, more than any other, I urge my hon. Friends to reject the motion and to vote for the amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the motion:—

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 300.

Division No. 20]
[7.09 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Anderson, Donald


Allaun, Frank
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Alton, David
Ashton, Joe





Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Golding, John


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Graham, Ted


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, George(Morpeth)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Grant, John(Islington C)


Beith, A.J.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bennett, Andrew (St'Kp't N)
Hardy, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bottomley, Rt HonA. (M'b'ro)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Homewood, William


Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)
Hooley, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Huckfield, Les


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n &amp; P)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cartwright, John
Janner, Hon Greville


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
John, Brynmor


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cook, Robin F.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Crawshaw, Richard
Kilfedder, James A.


Crowther, Stan
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Neil


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lamborn, Harry


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Leighton, Ronald


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Miss Joan


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Deakins, Eric
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McCusker, H.


Dempsey, James
McDonald, DrOonagh


Dewar, Donald
McElhone, Frank


Dixon, Donald
McGuire'Michael(Ince)


Dobson, Frank
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dormand, Jack
McKelvey, William


Douglas, Dick
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
McMahon, Andrew


Dunlop, John
McNally, Thomas


Dunn, James A.
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnett, Jack
McTaggart, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McWilliam, John


Eadie, Alex
Magee, Bryan


Eastham, Ken
Marks, Kenneth


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


English, Michael
Maxton, John


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maynard, Miss Joan


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (Newton)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Ewing, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Forrester, John
Molyneaux, James


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W' shawe)


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morton, George


Freud, Clement
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Garrert, John (NorwichS)
Newens, Stanley


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


George, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O' Neill, Martin






Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steel, Rt Hon David


Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Park, George
Stoddart, David


Parker, John
Stott, Roger


Pavitt, Laurie
Strang, Gavin


Penhaligon, David
Straw, Jack


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Prescott, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Race, Reg
Tilley, John


Radice, Giles
Tinn, James


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Torney, Tom


Richardson, Jo
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wainwright, Rt (Colne V)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watkins, David


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Weetch, Ken


Rooker, J.W.
Welsh, Michael


Roper, John
White, Frank R.


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Whitehead, Phillip


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ryman, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Sever, John
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, William (C' try SE)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Winnick, David


Silverman, Julius
Woodall, Alec


Skinner, Dennis
Woolmer, Kenneth


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Wright, Sheila


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Hugh McCartney and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Stallard, A.W.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond


Aitken, Jonathan
Burden, Sir Frederick


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Chalker, Mrs.Lynda


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Churchill, W.S.


Atkins, Robert (Preston)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Banks, Robert
Cockeram, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Colvin, Michael


Bell, Sir Ronald
Cope, John


Bendall, Vivian
Cormack, Patrick


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T' bay)
Corrie, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Costain, Sir Albert


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Cranborne, Viscount


Best, Keith
Crouch, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Blaker, Peter
Dover, Denshore


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bowden, Andrew
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Durant, Tony


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brinton, Tim
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Elliott, Sir William


Brotherton, Michael
Emery, Peter


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Eyre, Reginald


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Buck, Antony
Farr, John


Budgen, Nick
Fell, Anthony





Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Luce, Richard


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lyell, Nicholas


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mc Crindle, Robert


Fletcher, A. (Ed' nb' gh N)
Macfarlane, Neil


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
MacGregor, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Forman, Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F' st)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
McQuarrie, Albert


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Major, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marland, Paul


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marlow, Antony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall Michael (Arundel)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gow, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Griffiths, E. (B' y St. E dm' ds)
Mitchell David(Basingstoke)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Moate, Roger


Grist, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Gummer, John Selwyn
Moore, John


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morgan, Geraint


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hannam, John
Mudd, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Murphy, Christopher


Hastings, Stephen
Myles, David


Hawkins, Paul
Neale, Gerrard


Hawksley, Warren
Needham, Richard


Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Michael


Henderson, Barry
Newton, Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr' th 'm)
Osborn, John


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parris, Matthew


Howell, Rt Hon D (G'ldf'd)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Percival, Sir Ian


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pollock, Alexander


Jessel, Toby
Porter, Barry


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Knight, Mrs Jill
Renton, Tim


Knox, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lang, Ian
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Latham, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lee, John
Roberts, M. (Cardiff N W)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rossi, Hugh


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rost, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas






Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B' heath)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Shersby, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Silvester, Fred
Waddington, David


Sims, Roger
Wakeham, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waldegrave, Hon William


Smith, Dudley
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Speed, Keith
Walker, B. (Perth)


Speller, Tony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Spence, John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walters, Dennis


Sproat, Iain
Ward, John


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stainton, Keith
Watson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, John
Wheeler, John


Steen, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stevens, Martin
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Wickenden, Keith


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stokes, John
Wilkinson, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Tapsell, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Donald
Tellers for the Noes:


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Thornton, Malcolm

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the progress achieved by Her Majesty's Government in the search for a satisfactory revised Common Fisheries Policy, particularly in relation to conservation and marketing; confirms that such a policy must maintain the need to secure an exclusive 12 mile limit, preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities, adequate quotas for the United Kingdom, effective conservation measures and a Community-wide system of enforcement as well as improvements in the marketing arrangements hitherto in force; and urges Her Majesty's Government vigorously to continue, in consultation with the fishing industry, the search for a solution on the outstanding issues.

Lorries, People and the Environment

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move,
That this House, believing that the measures proposed in the White Paper "Lorries, People and the Environment" are inadequate to solve the problems of existing heavy lorries, is opposed to any increase in heavy lorry weights.
Few transport issues have aroused such widespread and continuing concern as the proposal to raise the legal limits for the weights of heavy lorries that run on the roads of this country. In view of the previous decision taken by the House on the issue, it is understandable that the Government should have proceeded with considerable caution in their approach to their own proposals. Having set up the Armitage committee, having published its report a year ago and having read carefully, I hope, the 58 recommendations that the committee made, the Government have taken 12 months before putting their proposals in a White Paper and laying it before the House. That is understandable. What is almost impossible to understand is why the White Paper bears only the faintest resemblance to the Armitage proposals.
In a previous debate, I was among those who criticised the Armitage proposals for not going far enough. However, the White Paper contains only the faintest shadow of the safeguards that Armitage proposed. It does not begin to approach what is required to deal with the problems of today's heavy lorries, let alone the heavier lorries that are proposed. It is therefore not surprising that most, if not all, of the major bodies that have made representations to the Government on the issue have expressed their considerable opposition.
The Association of County Councils has expressed considerable disappointment. That puts things mildly. The Association of District Councils has said that the White Paper opens the floodgates to a storm of protest. That reflects the situation more fairly. The Association of Metropolitan Associations has expressed its total rejection of the Government's heavy lorry proposals in the White Paper. Most environmentalist bodies concerned with Armitage are totally dismayed at the proposals in the White Paper. Even the road haulage industry must be embarrassed at the lack of a package that embraces the heavyweight lorry proposal in a defensible way.
I wish to endear myself to hon. Members by giving two assurances. First, I do not intend to speak on each of the 58 recommendations of the Armitage committee. Secondly, I realise that many hon. Members wish to express views. I shall therefore restrict my remarks to a few of the issues. This is not to say that I consider them the only issues or the most important issues. I hope that will be understood.
I wish to deal first with the Government's proposition that heavier lorries will mean fewer lorries. On that, the Government rest a number of their assertions in favour of what they propose. The Government's proposition flies in the face of experience in this country and of the statistical evidence taken by Armitage. In fact, statistical evidence and experience show that each time there has been an increase in the maximum permitted weight of lorries, there has been a big increase in the number of heavy lorries on our roads. I wish to take only three of the most recent and, I think, apposite increases to demonstrate what I say.
In 1955, when the 24-tonne lorry was permitted for the first time on our roads, the number of lorries over eight tonnes unladen weight was 5,000. In 1960 the figure was 11,000. When the 32-tonne articulated lorry—the lorry that has given rise to considerable concern—was first allowed on our roads, the number, by the same definition, increased from 24,000 in 1965 to 55,000 in 1970.
The most recent increase of any significance followed the introduction of the 30-tonne fixed four-axle lorry in 1972. The number of heavy lorries, by the same definition, was 96,000 in 1975, and that number had increased to 121,000 by 1979. There is no evidence that the increase in the maximum permitted weight will do other than encourage, for understandable reasons, those in the road haulage business to go for more freight business. They can, by virtue of the increased lorry weights, compete more effectively with the railways, helped by the motorway programme carried out during the period to which I have referred. With each increase in lorry weights, the amount of freight carried by rail, expressed on a tonnene mileage basis, has declined both in percentage and absolute terms, whereas the amount carried by lorries on our roads has increased.
In 1953, more freight in tonne mileage terms was carried on the railways than was carried by lorries on the roads. By 1979, lorries were carrying five times as much freight in tonne mileage terms as the railways. On the evidence available and in the light of experience it is almost impossible to believe that an increase in the permitted weight of lorries, as proposed in the White Paper will mean fewer lorries on the roads. The signs are that there will be more. This affects what the Government—

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with a very important point. I think he said—I hope I do not misrepresent him—that the Armitage report did not support the view that there would be fewer lorries if they were allowed to carry a full load. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct. Paragraph 360 of the report reads:
Heavier lorries should reduce the total amount of lorry traffic on the roads. If heavier lorries were allowed, the reduction in lorry traffic compared to what the traffic would otherwise be, might be about 450 million—500 million miles by 1990
Paragraph 361 reads:
It has been suggested in evidence that allowing heavier lorries might increase lorry traffic, through the attraction of business from competing modes, principally the railways. This is not likely to be very significant.
All the scientific evidence refutes what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Booth: I agree that this is an important issue. What Armitage said in those chapters contradicts the statistical evidence.

Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman said that Armitage contradicted the proposition that there would be fewer lorries if they were allowed to carry the full load. That is not so. He should withdraw what he said.

Mr. Booth: I shall not withdraw what I said, because the statistical evidence taken by Armitage bears out what I said. I do not want to waste the time of the House. I shall discuss that matter with the right hon. Gentleman later. However, I assure him that I have checked the figures

carefully. If he wants to check them, he should turn to table 4 on page 6. That table shows the actual tonnage by road, rail, coastal shipping, and so on. Table 5 on page 7 shows that 22·8 thousand million tonne miles were carried by rail in 1953 as opposed to 19·7 thousand million tonne miles by road. That bears out my contention. The right hon. Gentleman will see in the same table that in 1979 road was carrying 64 thousand million tonne miles, and rail was carrying only 12·2 thousand million tonne miles. That is exactly what I said—that five times as much freight was carried by road as by rail.
The statistical evidence taken by Armitage bears out exactly what I said. Armitage's assumption about road damage, particularly in a free market as opposed to the Community where there is strict quantity control licensing on heavy lorries, is little more than an assumption and does not relate to the statistical evidence.

Mr. Gary Waller: I do not want to get bogged down in an argument about statistics with the right hon. Gentleman, but he is being selective. Between 1949 and 1979, the number of lorries in Great Britain increased by only 74 per cent., whereas road vehicles generally increased by 500 per cent. Can he explain that other than that there was a trend towards heavier lorries, which reduced the number on the roads?

Mr. Booth: The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) is being selective. If he is talking about the total number of vehicles, including cars, over the past decade, there has been a greater increase in the number of lorries of three axles or more than in the number of cars. If he is talking about heavy lorries, I must point out that that my definition was 8 tonnes unladen weight. If he is talking of lower weights, he will find that, even at the lowest weights taken by Armitage, an enormous increase in the number of the heaviest lorries is needed before there is any fall-off in the number of smaller lorries.
I am not being selective. Experience in this country has shown that the railways have lost freight in absolute and percentage terms to roads as we have increased lorry weights and built motorways. That is not being selective; that is reality. That is the experience of this country.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Would the right hon. Gentleman read table 32, which deals with the estimated number of heavier lorries?

Mr. Booth: I have read the estimated number. I have also read—the hon. Lady does not appear to have done so—the actual number of lorries in Armitage and the actual number of goods vehicles. Table 1 on page 5 shows that the number of lorries of over 8 tonnes unladen weight has risen consistently from 1946 to 1979. The number of lorries "not over 1½ tonnes" has also risen consistently during that period. It is only the small category of lorries of unladen weight between 1½ tonnes and 3 tonnes that has shown any sign of decline, and that only during the past five years. The hon. Lady should listen to what I say if she wishes to take part in the argument. The actual numbers, as opposed to the estimates, support my contention.
That is important, although not conclusive, to the Government's argument about road damage. The Government claim that road damage would be reduced by the introduction of heavier lorries. Again, that statement needs to be questioned against evidence and experience.


To be fair, the Government say that, although some of the lorries that they are proposing are more damaging, the fact that the number would come down pro rata to the increase in their permitted payload would more than offset the increased damage caused by those lorries.

Mr. Peter Fry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the evidence given to the Select Committee on Transport, Sir Henry Chilver, the vice-chancellor of the Cranfield Institute of Technology, said:
if we move into the heavier lorries, we would indeed, if we transferred goods to the heavier lorries, do less damage"?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the opinion of one of the leading experts on this subject in the country?

Mr. Booth: That is a highly selective quotation, if the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) will allow me to say so. The overwhelming bulk of qualified technical opinion is that the damage that an individual lorry does tends to rise with the sum of the fourth power of its axle weights. Whether the bigger lorry does more or less damage depends on the axle weights and how many axles there are.
Armitage said that 90 per cent. of the damage to our roads was done by the heavy lorry. If the statistical evidence supports the idea that there will be more larger lorries on the roads, there will be even more damage.
Let us suppose that the Government are right and that the number of lorries drops in strict proportion to their increase in payload. If the operators of the 32·5-tonne gross weight lorry, which will be allowed under the Government's proposals to run at 40 tonnes, say "We do not need so many lorries now. We shall scrap a number pro rata, and run the remaining number on our roads at 40 tonnes", they will still do 15 per cent. more damage, according to the calculation in the Armitage report. The reason includes the fact that the Government are proposing that most of the new lorries will be allowed to have two or more axles at heavier weights. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He cannot have read the Armitage report if he does not accept that the 34-tonne lorry that he proposes has a higher damage and standard axle number than the existing 32·5-tonne lorry.
The Government are proposing that every axle weight on a 32·5-tonne lorry should be allowed to be more heavily loaded. That is bound to do more damage. It is proposed that the 38-tonne should have higher steering and drive axle weights than the 32·5-tonne.
The right hon. Gentleman proposes a 40-tonne vehicle. According to the Armitage test, the lorry proposed by the right hon. Gentleman does the least damage to our roads. Again according to the Armitage test, it would do less damage than some existing lorries. However, it would still do more damage than the 44-tonne lorry. That lorry will be allowed to run with a higher steering axle weight and higher semi-trailer axle weight than the existing 32·5-tonne lorry. The White Paper, in paragraph 25, states
people wrongly believe that there are plans afoot to make lorries even bigger.
In addition, in paragraph 30, it states:
It is essential to ensure that heavier lorries can be no bigger than the biggest lorries we have at present.
Why does the Secretary of State contradict himself? In the same paragraph as he says that it is essential that lorries should not be any bigger, he states:
The Government also proposes to increase the legal limit on articulated vehicle length to 15.5 metres".

Therefore, there is no doubt that an increase in vehicle dimensions is being proposed for articulated vehicles.
There are two other proposals in the White Paper that will also result in bigger vehicles on the roads. First, I refer to the increase in specialised vehicles. At present, they are built to limits appropriate to the loads that they carry. A petrol tanker is a good example. Today, the petrol tank is built to carry a payload that brings the vehicle's total weight to 32·5 tonnes. However, if the Government's proposals are carried, petrol tankers will have tanks that are big enough to carry a payload that will bring the total gross lorry weight to 40 tonnes—if it is a two-drive axle lorry—or to 38 tonnes, if it is a single drive axle lorry. Therefore, there will be bigger lorries.
I am even more concerned that the proposed increase in weight will act as an incentive towards using many more trailer combinations on our roads. Those combinations are undoubtedly longer. We do not see many on British roads, but they are on the roads in Germany and other countries and they are considerably bigger than our biggest articulated wagons. They are longer by an amount that is greater than my height and I am not the shortest Member of Parliament. Therefore, the lorries will be far too big for many of our roads, which are unsuitable even for existing lorries and were never designed to take 40-tonne lorries.
The White Paper claims that we should accept heavier lorries because the Government have a trunk road programme that gives high priority to bypasses. Of course, bypasses relieve some of the most serious effects of heavy lorries. If that claim were borne out, several people might be influenced. The Government's evidence to the Armitage committee was that 400 additional bypasses were required. That was a conservative estimate in both senses of the word. The County Surveyors Society said that 600 or more additional bypasses were justified on economic grounds alone.
The truth is that only 21 bypasses are under construction. The White Paper brings forward a further 11 bypasses for construction. That will leave 31 of the bypasses in the suspended list. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind that that includes the Dalton bypass on the A590 in my constituency. Indeed, that is a classic example of a road that is unsuitable for 40-tonne lorries. The programme will leave 32 of the bypasses in the 1984 onward reserve list and 37 that will not start before 1984. The road haulage industry regards that as part of an inadequate road programme. The British Road Federation contends that road construction is now half what it was 10 years ago. Traffic, particularly heavy lorry traffic, has increased during that period.
I was interested to note the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), which was answered on 30 November in col. 46 of Hansard. It gave the Government's estimate of the amount of new road to be opened next year. The question reveals that the Government's estimate is that only 39 miles of new motorway and trunk road will be opened next year. In 1978, 87 miles were opened. In fairness to the Government and their predecessors, I should add that 264 miles were opened in 1971.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Of course, 1971 was some time ago. The right hon. Gentleman complains about the low mileage figures for next year. Will he look, in the same answer, at the number of miles to be opened in 1983? The


right hon. Gentleman will find that a dramatic increase is expected, over and above any of the mileages achieved under the last years of the Labour Government.

Mr. Booth: I could point to dramatic increases in mileage under the Labour Government. I cited 1982, because presumably that is the year that the Government have in mind for the introduction of heavier lorries. They intend to introduce such lorries although they are cutting expenditure on trunk road construction. Within a total transport expenditure cut of £220 million, at 1979 survey prices—I cite the Government's estimates for expenditure—they are cutting trunk road construction.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having given way yet again. I shall not intervene again in his speech. However, he knows that we are reducing expenditure only because we are getting a better bargain for the taxpayer, because contract prices are lower than forecast. Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that we are delivering the trunk road programme in full? As he has the answer in front of him, will he give the mileage for 1983 and compare it with the mileages under the last years of the Labour Government? In 1983 there will be a dramatic increase in the mileage of new roads to be opened. That undermines the point that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make by saying that we are failing to deliver the bypasses.

Mr. Booth: I have not got the answer in front of me, but I read it carefully before attending the debate. I chose 1982, because that programme was entirely within the Government's control. If I had chosen the programmes for 1981, 1980 or 1979, some of the roads opened would have been begun under the Labour Government. Equally, if I had chosen 1975, some of the roads would have been started under a Labour Government. I chose a year that seemed appropriate. I listened with great interest to the Under-Secretary of State when he said that there had been a cut in expenditure because we were getting better value for money. That is a nice change in defensive argument. Not long ago we were told that the Department of Transport's budget was being cut because the Government—reasonably, from their point of view—expected the Department to make some contributions to public expenditure savings. If such cuts have been made to achieve better value for money, it makes a delightful change of tune.
Generally, the White Paper pays little regard to Armitage's serious proposals about how to deal with the problems of heavy lorries. It offers a reduction in lorry noise that will be barely detectable to the human ear and is to be introduced by means of regulations that will come into force in 1983. It offers further reduction which might be brought about in the future by collaborative research and development. It does virtually nothing more to deal with the problems of ground vibration, fumes and safety standards, on which it is particularly non-committal.
The White Paper appears to deny the evidence of water and gas boards and local authorities that heavy goods vehicles are damaging to our cities' underground services. That is particularly noteworthy as Manchester has just produced direct evidence that when heavy vehicles were re-routed underground services suffered enormous damage on the new routes.
The White Paper dismisses as insignificant the effect of heavy lorries on bridges, in spite of the fact that the Institution of Highway Engineers says that we shall probably have to spend another £100 million on improvements to cope with the proposals.
One of the clearest signs that the Government are backing away from the serious issues that heavy lorries raise is their failure to make any proposals for more effective control of operators and more effective enforcement of lorry weights. Illegal running and overloading are serious problems. With the introduction of heavier lorries, even the displacement of a metre either way can make a significant difference to axle loading and damage to the roads. The Government have no proposals for the adequate staffing of enforcement bodies. They do not propose a programme of dynamic weigh bridges which will be needed to check the heavier lorries.
If the Government seriously believe that little can be done to reduce the harmful effects of heavier lorries, the White Paper is at least honest. Any Armitage recommendations that the Government do not ignore are confined to further research and investigation. The recommendations that they accept can be delivered in only a few cases because the resources are not to be made available. The Government are vague about what should be studied and what should be discussed.
In only one area is the White Paper hard and fast and crystal clear in its recommendations—where it proposes the increase in heavy lorry weights. It is so clear about that that the Government have already published for consultation their draft regulations to introduce the increases in weights under the construction and use regulations.
Heavy lorries are seen by most who suffer from them as vehicles which produce intolerable noise, fumes, vibration damage and congestion. Hon. Members know, from the Government's response in the White Paper, that it will be a long time before there is any improvement. We cannot do much to deal with that, but we can do something to ensure that in the meantime conditions do not become much worse. We should vote for the motion.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`this House, believing that environmental and social problems arising from heavy lorries must be tackled comprehensively and vigorously and that industry should be helped to keep down transport costs, welcomes the Government's commitment to a continuing and substantial programme of by-pass construction to which further additions are steadily being made, and considers that decisions should not be taken on the White Paper until there has been adequate time to consider fully all the measures proposed in the light of consultations on the draft amending Regulations published for that purpose.'.
I am glad to have the opportunity of setting out in more detail the proposals in the Government's White Paper for grappling with the heavy lorry problem. I shall deal with some of the arguments expressed by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). I find less attractive the Opposition's attempt to bounce us into decisions on a White Paper that the right hon. Gentleman has recognised involves matters of great complexity that deserve careful discussion.
We are dealing with the interests of tens of thousands of people in our villages and towns. We are dealing with


the jobs of 300,000 people in road haulage. We are dealing with the jobs of thousands of people in the truck-building industry, where demand is way down and there is a great need of certainty and orders. My right hon. and hon. Friends are absolutely right to be anxious about the difficult problems but I am sure that the House and the country will see that the Opposition's attempt to hustle us into an instant decision, on a matter that the right hon. Gentleman agrees needs careful consideration, will not be welcome. It will be dismissed.
The issue has been debated on several occasions. Only last January the right hon. Gentleman said that two months was not nearly enough time in which to examine the Armitage report before a debate. We have had barely a week. The Government have produced a detailed White Paper and after a week we are being hustled into a decision.
The House has been assured—and I gladly repeat the assurance emphatically—that there will be a full debate on the Government's proposals. We are proposing a two-month period of consultation on the draft regulations. After that, regulations will be tabled. I have said, and I repeat, that the Government's mind is open to new evidence, and obviously I shall listen carefully to what is said in debate and in the consultations. That is the proper way to go about dealing with a matter that involves many people's interests, welfare and jobs. The right hon. Gentleman has not approached the matter in the way that he should in proposing that we should be pushed into a decision tonight, only one week after the publication of a White Paper containing many complex aspects.

Mr. Paul Dean: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that his mind is open on all the decisions with which we are concerned, that the consultation will be genuine and that no decisions will be made until that process is complete? Is that the assurance that he is giving to the House?

Mr. Howell: I am assuring the House that the Government's mind is open to new evidence and that the Government will listen carefully to what is said in debate and in the consultations. That is the right way to go about dealing with a matter of great complexity when, as I shall argue later, there are substantial environmental and industrial gains within our grasp. To seek to telescope the discussions into one week is not the right way to deal with such serious and difficult issues.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness argued a number of points. At one stage he seemed to be confused about the evidence in Armitage. For that reason alone it would be wrong to rush into a decision. Clearly the right hon. Gentleman's confusion about the figures is considerable. He is unable to interpret clearly the precise figures in the Armitage report about heavier lorries leading to fewer lorries.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Secretary of State has been asked whether his mind is made up. Will he give an undertaking that the consultations will be real? It is clear in the White Paper that the Government's mind is made up. The White Paper states:
These objectives cannot be achieved overnight: road improvements take time and the lorry fleet can only be changed as vehicles are replaced.
Why did not the Government produce a Green Paper for consultation instead of a White Paper?

Mr. Howell: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), I made it clear that the Government's proposals have been put forward. Draft regulations have been circulated. A decision on regulations to be tabled and debated by the House will have to be made. That is the right way. The right hon. Gentleman's way is the wrong way. The country and people deeply interested in these matters will not appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's way.

Mr. Booth: The Secretary of State said that my evidence was confused. He will be able to read the figures that I gave in Hansard. He can check tables 1 and 5 of the Armitage report at pages 5 to 7 and if every figure that I have given is correct he should come forward with an appropriate apology.

Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman's recognition that I must examine many figures reinforces my point that trying to hustle the House into a decision tonight is wholly inappropriate. I ask him to consider paragraph 360 of the Armitage report and reconcile that with his apparent statement that Armitage does not recognise and validate the point that if there were a move to fully loaded lorries there would be fewer lorries. It does just that. It is there in black and white. I shall need his recognition of the confusion in his mind about the matter. I am sure that he is right to say that the figures are complex. He seems now to be arguing against his own motion and saying that we need more time in which to consider the different figures.
I turn to the purpose of the Government in putting forward our proposals in a White Paper. The purpose is clearly to get lorries away from people and to reduce industrial costs for freight haulage. The position now is becoming worse. Some of my hon. Friends rightly have said that this is a difficult issue. I must tell them that the position is not static. The 32·5-tonne lorry presents a problem that is becoming considerably and unpleasantly worse for many people. We must recognise that fact and face it.
Sir Arthur Armitage reminded us of this in paragraph 139 of his report when he said:
Our objective must be to recommend a combination of policies which will be sufficient to reduce substantially the adverse effects of lorries overall, and to reduce the problems caused by lorries in as many as possible of the places which already suffer severely or which would suffer a large deterioration in conditions if nothing further were done.
That is the purpose put forward in the Armitage report and it is certainly the Government's purpose in putting forward the White Paper.
I turn now to the question whether lorry trailers are bigger, about which there has been much public comment. The cab is 1½ ft—half a metre—larger, but the containers are no bigger. I must make that clear, because I have read in the newspapers that hon. Members fear bigger juggernauts. I, too, would fear bigger juggernauts. We do not wish to see bigger juggernauts on the roads. On the contrary, the proposals in the White Paper introduce, for the first time, restrictions on height for the new heavy vehicles. Nor was it proposed in the Armitage report that there should be bigger trucks on our roads. I would not advocate that such a proposal should be brought to the House for decision during the next two months. That is the first point that must be made clear—we do not propose to have larger containers on British trucks.
The next issue that I wish to take up is the one to which the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness has returned


several times, as have other hon. Members. They say that in the White Paper we are selecting from the Armitage report proposals that will be of particular benefit to the road haulage industry and freight transportation in Britain. That is wholly untrue. There are 58 recommendations in the report. We have said straight away that we accept 46 of them. We have said that we shall pursue a further four recommendations, which are vitally important. Of the remaining eight recommendations one deals with weight markings, which we do not believe to be necessary. Although the lorries will be no bigger, they will have an extra axle. Another recommendation is addressed to local authorities and three others deal with section 8 grants.
I wish my hon. Friends to be clear, when considering their views about the White Paper, that the Government are accepting the overwhelming majority of the Armitage proposals, because we see the set of proposals and policies as a package dealing with the deterioriating problem of the heavy lorry, where action is required for environmental and economic reasons.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness also mentioned bypasses. It is absolutely fair and proper to ask: what are the Government doing about the bypass programme, given that it is the Government's aim, as it was of Armitage, to keep lorries away from people and to get them off roads for which they were never designed? I must say to the House—because I do not believe that hon. Members will have got the right impression from the right hon. Gentleman's words—that the bypass programme is both substantial and growing. During the next few years we expect to start new trunk road schemes of a total value of about £800 million. Of that sum, about £200 million is accounted for by schemes that are specific bypasses of towns or villages. The total value of our longer-term programme is £2·5 billion, of which £600 million is for specific bypass schemes.
We are continually adding to the programme. The new and speeded up bypasses that we announced in July and November and in the Armitage White Paper are not the last word. The programme is kept under regular review and I hope to announce the results of our current consideration in January. If we can sensibly do more, we shall, but the essential point is that we are already doing a great deal. That is the central Government trunk road programme.
As to local bypasses, there are 50 schemes now under construction at a value of £300 million. In the transport supplementary grants settlement for 1982–83, which I hope to announce before Christmas, I have given high priority to county councils with urgent proposals for bypasses and relief roads. The funds that I make available will enable local authorities to go ahead with another 35 bypass projects worth about £130 million, with a further 47 schemes worth about £280 million in the pipeline and proposed to be started during the next two or three years. I repeat that it is a total of 82 bypasses valued at £400 million on top of the local authority schemes already under construction. Those schemes make a striking contrast to the selective figures picked out by—

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: I shall not give way. The debate is a short one and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
I turn now to lorry control and what more we can do to ensure that lorries travel more on roads that are capable of holding them and less where they are unpleasant and unwelcome. Local authorities have extensive powers on such matters, but we should try to do more about three matters. We shall be reviewing the needs of local authorities when putting their powers into effect. We shall issue further advice, drawing on experience since the 1973 Act introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), to consider how the powers work. We shall pursue lorry action area proposals urgently with the local authorities.
I know that some hon. Members have said that it is essential that that aspect of the package should be emphasised. There is no doubt that it is a vitally important part of the package.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right Friend give way?

Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: I shall press on a little more, as time is short.
The right hon. Gentleman made great play with the question whether there will be fewer lorries on the road if they are allowed to run fully loaded and with the extra axle rather than with the four-fifths load. The TRRL states, and the Armitage report accepts, that if there are heavier lorries there will be fewer lorries. Paragraph 360 of the report states:
There would be an absolute increase in the mileage of the heaviest lorries, but the increase would be some 20–25 per cent. less than if the maximum weight remained at 32·5 tonnes.
That statement draws on the TRRL's extensive research, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot brush it aside.
Greater economic activity will mean that more goods will be transported and that lorry and freight traffic will increase, but that will happen if we do nothing. However, if we do not allow the fuller loads proposed in the White Paper, we shall have more large lorries on the roads. That fact must be faced in making our decision, after proper consultation on maximum weights.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howell: No. Many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, and I am now coming to a close.
Finally, it is said that the proposals are just for industry. We should not be ashamed to seek ways to help industry. As it is frequently said, it is vital to keep down transport costs. We are a business nation. We should carefully consider the pros and cons when we have the opportunity to do something practical. Industry would welcome the benefits. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce with 57,000 members, major chemical industries, such as ICI and major agricultural interests, such as the NFU, urge us to proceed along the lines of the White Paper.
I should not dream of putting forward the proposals if there were to be no substantial environmental gains, but there will be fewer lorries, as Armitage and the TRRL confirms, and they will be safer, quieter and cleaner. Those advantages have been confirmed by thorough study. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness sought to refute those facts, but he merely got himself deeper into a quagmire of statistics.
We have the right to assess the case and we are entirely right to reject the motion, which would deny us the opportunity to consider a vitally important matter, with a potential for great environmental and industrial gains.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howell: I ask the House to support the amendment and to reject the motion.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: Despite the importance of the discussion, I wish only to make a brief contribution to assist others who wish to intervene.
I give my unequivocal support to the motion, which reflects the attitude of many of my constituents who lobbied extensively following the publication of the Armitage report last December. A large number of my people reacted violently to the proposals for heavier lorries. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) said, many of our roads are inadequate. Some were built for eighteenth century traffic, and they are overcrowded with an ever increasing number of large vehicles. Not all major roads are even built to resist the excessive wear and tear.
I have some sympathy with the lobby to increase lorry weights, which includes the British Road Federation and the General Council of British Shipping, but I am even more mindful of the escalating problems in many towns, cities and seaports if the weight is increase to 40 tonnes, as proposed by Armitage.
If the decision were implemented the problems that my constituency already has to endure would be considerably accentuated. The number of heavy vehicles on the roads in my constituency is increasing. We have six coal mines, two coke works and coal mines to the south and to the north. Two of my coal mines operate under the North Sea and are situated near the beach. The nuisance of dust, noise and vibration continues and affects people's health. Nowhere is the problem more acute than in the small town and port of Seaham.
We are grateful to the National Coal Board for providing jobs in an area with excessively high unemployment, but its extensive operations produce divergent problems. Stockpiling coal gives rise to heavy traffic to move that coal. Coal is also moved to be blended to comply with the requirements of the steel industry.
The small port in my constituency is vigorous, bustling and thriving because of good management. Since the export of coal ceased, it has had to diversify its activities, although it is again now marginally operating in coal exports. The divergence of its activities creates extra heavy traffic in a small, built-up and heavily congested area. As many as 120 heavy vehicles, carrying coal or perhaps slurry from pits, pound up and down a narrow built-up street throughout the day and night. The 5 per cent. reduction in the number of lorries if heavier lorries were introduced would be a great blessing to my constituents. At 3 o'clock in the morning they would be able to consider the fact that only six fewer lorries would pass by in the next 24 hours.
I pay tribute to the National Coal Board, to the Seaham harbour dock company, the Durham county council and the Department of the Environment, who have joined me in trying to solve the problem. We are on the way to finding a partial solution to benefit many of my people,

but, whatever improvements are made, a large number of heavy vehicles will still travel through my constituency, so I give my wholehearted support to the motion.

Mr. John Peyton: I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) yesterday and say that I only want to be helpful.
I shall support the Government's amendment for three reasons. First, it states that the Government will take "adequate time" to consider representations. Secondly, it strengthens the commitment that has already been made to bypasses. I shall say more about that later. Thirdly, my right hon. Friend has assured the House that he has an open mind on the subject. I believe that he would have done better if he had made it clearer in the White Paper that he faces a difficult task. He has to reconcile the need for an economic, efficient transport system in this country and an opportunity for our manufacturing industry to make a contribution to it with the resentment felt by many people at the intrusion of huge vehicles into places where there is literally no room for them.
From time to time, the House should be reminded that White Papers exist officially to promote public understanding. It is a long time since any of us has seen a White Paper that goes even a few inches down the road of promoting public understanding. I cannot resist the temptation of calling the attention of the House to one gem in this White Paper, which has one merit—it is brief. Paragraph 19 states:
It will be important to keep the methodology of assessment under review to keep pace with improved techniques and changing circumstances, and the Government will ensure that this is done.
I wonder what that adds to the sum of human happiness and wisdom. That sort of claptrap could be easily dispensed with.
On page 9 of the same document—there are only 12 pages in it—the Government finally came to the real point, their intention to increase the laden weight of a lorry to 40 tonnes. I cannot for the life of me understand why my right hon. Friend and his Department did not state clearly in the White Paper that they were thinking of introducing a new vehicle that would carry a heavier load, that would be minimally larger in order to accommodate a better and safer cab which would be allowed to go faster but that the axle loading would be unchanged. It would also, in time, become less noisy, less smelly, less dirty, and there would be a limit on its height. It would be safer, more efficient and pay more towards road costs. That would be a reasonably honest and intelligible summary of the position. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State will make it clear in his reply whether he accepts my summary; if he does not, I hope that he will adopt it because it is a great deal better than anything that the Government have managed to come up with.
If the Government adopted my advice, the way would be open for discussion of some of the important points. I should like to know what the Government mean by their reference to a research and development programme. Many people in public life frequently mouth those words, but they have long ago forgotten what they mean. The House is entitled to know something about the details of the research and development programme—which is very


necessary—that the Government contemplate. The Government should also say how they intend to meet the problem of enforcement, which is a real problem. We cannot have the roads littered with people stopping every road vehicle. That drives one to the conclusion that only ferocious penalties will deal with the problem. Anyone who breaches the law seriously should be in danger of having his vehicle and load impounded for an indefinite period. That would make people think pretty hard.
We should also consider the details of how the contribution of the so-called customer to the costs of the track will be measured. The House is entitled to know the side effects on the numbers of vehicles with draw-bar trailers. Their use is legal now, but they are uneconomic unless and until the overall weight is raised. Have the Government formed any estimate of numbers?
I also welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on bypasses, but we have to think about the meaning of words and measure their meaning and value against the background of our procedures, which too often are those of a tortoise that has lost its sense of direction. Our progress in building roads is incredibly sluggish. It is not only the fault of Ministers, for this country has carefully preserved an ability to prevent almost anything. I am not yet satisfied with the rather brusque way in which the possibility of lorry routes has been pushed on one side simply because it is a difficult problem. The whole problem is difficult, and this aspect of it needs serious thought.
I do not wish to take up much more of the time of the House because I believe that ex-Ministers returning to their old stamping ground are a nuisance. I conclude my remarks with two requests to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I hope that they will bury deep the strongly held official belief that one can get a quart into a pint pot as long as one turns away and does not look at the process. I invite my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends to come to my constituency. I hope that I shall not be accused of being parochial, but I should like them to look at the quaint old lanes that meander through Montacute, West Coker and Langport. All three quaint old lanes are class A roads. To describe them in that way, of course, violates language. Before the Government brush aside further consideration of lorry routes, they should think of the condition of those quaint old country lanes now masquerading as main roads.
I am overflowing with hospitality this evening. I should like my right hon. Friend to come down to my part of the country and to make his way on a summer weekend through Ilminster. The building of its bypass has unaccountably slipped because of the tortoise-like procedures to which I referred earlier.
I do not want to be unkind. I know the difficulties faced by my right hon. Friend. However, I hope that he will take away the White Paper and pulp it. He can then return to the House with a clearer and more forthright statement of his intentions, and how he will carry them out. It will then be possible for those who now feel threatened to think that their cause has been understood. They may even understand something of the difficulties faced by the Government. They may then lose the strongly held impression that they have been sold a pup in a rather shabby way.

Mr. John Cartwright: In view of the concluding remarks of the Secretary of State, I want to make it absolutely clear that my colleagues and I appreciate and recognise the contribution made by the road haulage industry to the British economy in general, and to industry in particular. We recognise that, whatever action is taken to promote alternatives, road transport will play a leading role in the carriage of goods, especially those that need to be moved efficiently and rapidly.
However, I am not persuaded that everything possible is being done to switch freight away from road transport where that can effectively be undertaken. I represent a South-East London riverside constituency. My constituents point out that the river Thames is the broadest, simplest highway into the centre of London that can carry goods with no environmental damage. More should be done to use the waterways, as is done successfully by our European neighbours.
The Government rest their case for allowing heavier lorries on the argument that they are presenting a package of environmental safeguards and improvements. I am not persuaded by what they set out in the White Paper. It is certain that we shall have the heavier lorries. The environmental improvements and benefits are much less certain. The White Paper argument is that heavier lorries mean fewer lorries. The Secretary of State rests that argument on paragraph 360 of the Armitage report. We must remember exactly what that paragraph states. It includes the sentence:
Heavier lorries should reduce the total amount of lorry traffic on the roads.
It does not say that they will, but that they should. That estimate is based on forecasts made by transport economists.

Mr. Fry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there is no increase in lorry weights and there is economic recovery there will be even more lorries on the roads, many of which could do even more damage than the proposed 40-tonnes?

Mr. Cartwright: I understand that argument. However, the Government say that heavier lorries mean fewer lorries. That is based on estimates by transport economists. There is healthy scepticism about all economic forecasting. I do not know why transport economists should be different. All the evidence shows that when we have increased lorry weights we have not decreased the number of lorries. In fact, they have increased.
The White Paper does not take account of the movement of foreign lorries. Movements through the port of Dover between 1967 and 1979 increased more than 24 times, from 21,000 to 506,000. That shows the problem.
I turn to the Government's proposals for bypasses. They may be an ideal solution for the problems of heavy lorries that threaten small towns, but they do not offer a solution to the problems of the conurbations and the metropolitan areas.
In my part of South London it is absolutely impossible to have a system under which lorries shift goods from factories and warehouses to the trunk road system without passing through residential streets and shopping centres. It may be suggested that urban motorways are the solution to the problem, but we all recognise their cost in


environmental damage and financial investment. It is clear that in the great conurbations and metropolitan areas the bypass programme does not offer a solution to the problem of the heavy lorries.
Paragraph 2 of the White Paper suggests that lorries are already far too noisy. It refers to the 1983 proposition to reduce noise levels to 88 decibels. That will mean a high level of noise—about 1 decibel less than the 1970 permitted level. The White Paper pays a great deal of attention to the QHV90—the so-called quieter lorry—that will have a noise emission of 80 decibels, about the level of the noisiest car. That development has been promised throughout the 1980s, but we have only one prototype. I understand that the 80-decibel limit will depend on agreement with our European partners. There can be no guarantee of success, and no assurance to the long-suffering public of quieter lorries in the short term.
There is also the problem of vibration. Paragraph 20 of the White Paper states that people dislike vibration. I suggest that they more than dislike it. They believe that vibration damages their property, and there is good evidence to support that view. The White Paper seems. to be silent on vibration and on the impact that the proposed heavier lorries will have on the vibration problem.
There is one humorous but slightly chilling comment in paragraph 33 of the White Paper:
the greater impact of the heavier lorry in a collision would only increase marginally the severity of accidents".
That is of small comfort to anyone who is run into by a juggernaut.
If we couple the increased weight with the higher speed of lorries as proposed in the White Paper, we have an even more chilling prospect. If the Secretary of State were offered a choice between being hit by a 32·5 tonne lorry at 40 mph and a 40-tonne lorry at 50 mph, I think I know which one he would choose.
Parking is another major difficulty. Those who have large lorries parked outside their homes find the visual intrusion of such lorries distressing. In urban areas there are the problems of drivers sleeping in their vehicles, refrigerated lorries with their motors running, and early morning starts which wake up everyone when the lorries finally trundle away. We should give local authorities more encouragement to enforce overnight parking bans in residential areas.
I know that the White Paper mentions strengthening the licensing legislation, but the problems are with us now, and they demand more than legislation in future.
Finally, I accept that there is a case for heavier lorries, but the public will accept it only if they recognise that it is balanced by environmental improvements and safeguards. The White Paper fails absolutely to set out a convincing programme of that sort, and that is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will vote against it.

Sir Philip Goodhart: The White Paper cheerfully records that 215 of 275 towns in England with populations over 10,000 now have bypasses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred with pride to the size of the current programme. Like the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) I am conscious that there is no bypass for the largest city of all—London.
I regret that London's ring roads were not completed, because the centre of our capital city is now being strangled by juggernauts which are unsuited to our streets.

Some months ago I was travelling in a Ministry car down Knightsbridge when a juggernaut turned slightly erratically and went straight into the side of the car. A week later, in my constituency, I watched a juggernaut demolish a small car, pressing it against a robust pedestrian crossing beacon. Only last week I saw a juggernaut stuck in a mews 100 yards from my home. It appeared that the lorry would demolish a cottage and a garage. Only the driver's exceptional skill enabled him to extricate it.
Those are an everyday event in the centre of our capital city.
The White Paper refers to the planned improvements at Wisbech and West Walton, Narborough, Kelsall, Brockworth, Bridport, Brecon and Holywell. There is no reference to London or any of the major conurbations unless one reads that in the riveting sentence at the beginning of paragraph 13 which states:
Controls over the routes lorries may use are a useful means of protecting residential and other areas from traffic.
The central argument of the White Paper which has been bandied between the Front Benches this evening is that if we allow heavier loads, there will be 12 per cent. fewer heavy lorries on our roads.
Hon. Members have referred selectively to the Armitage report. I was particularly struck by table 38, which shows that, even with low growth in the economy and even if we have heavier lorries, we shall have more than 1,000 million miles per year of extra heavy lorry use on our roads by the end of the decade. That suggests to me that there will be several thousand more heavy lorries. However, we shall never know whether the Government's prediction is accurate.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East referred to safety because, given equal braking power and steering capacity, a heavier lorry will obviously be slightly less manoeuvreable than a lighter lorry. There are hundreds of thousands of heavy lorries on our roads. Therefore, it would be rash to assume that all brakes and all power steering systems will work effectively at all times. The damage caused by a heavy lorry when safety systems fail is clearly much greater than that done by a lighter lorry. The Transport and General Workers Union was quick to point that out when putting in its wage demands.
I turn to damage to roads and bridges. When I was partly responsible for this subject in Northern Ireland, some experts were concerned about the effect of total weight—not just axle weight—on roads built over peaty soil. Perhaps their fears have been allayed, but there is clearly a great deal that we do not know about the potential damage to roads, and particularly strain on bridges. I found the Armitage report particularly equivocal on the subject of bridges. It is highly critical of the EEC proposals, but in paragraph 414 the report asks a simple question:
'Where will it all end? What is to stop there being subsequent increases in weights until eventually we have 100 ton lorries on our roads?' The answer is simple: it will end right here. The reason is: bridges. 44 tonnes is the maximum weight of lorry of present dimensions that can be tolerated on the bridges of this country.
If anything over 44 tonnes will bring our bridges tumbling down, can we be sure that an increase to 40 tonnes will not result in a far bigger bill for repairing and strengthening our bridges than the Armitage report suggests?
On the question of lorry dimensions, which has such an important psychological impact, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) drew attention to the drawbar problem. Paragraph 365 of the Armitage report states:
There are some commodities of which a full weight load at present can just be carried within the dimensions of an articulated lorry. To carry a greater weight of such a commodity it would be necessary to switch to drawbar combinations, which can carry a greater volume of goods. On British roads there are few drawbar combinations relative to the number of articulated lorries. If maximum lorry weights were increased, our judgment is that the use of drawbar combinations would increase slightly".
If that judgment is wrong and the number of drawbar combinations increases substantially, it will mean an increase from 15·5 metres to 18 metres. Armitage suggested that the Department of Transport should monitor this aspect, but the White Paper does not go as far as that. One is therefore faced with the question of what to do this evening. The Secretary of State said that he wants more talks on the White Paper, but I do not believe that it provides a proper basis for a national plan for heavy lorries. Therefore, unless the Minister can speak with the tongue of angels, I regret that I shall not be able to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: In the short debate today and in the two debates on the Armitage report in the past 12 months it has been unfailingly shown that the case for the heavier lorry has not been substantiated in the minds of the general public or of anyone else.
I remind the House of the events of three years ago. One wonders about the activities of the Department when the new Minister comes to the House to support the idea of heavier lorries. A report appeared in The Guardian just over three years ago of an internal Department of Transport memorandum which had been leaked—the notorious Peeler memorandum, named after its author, Joseph Peeler, then head of the Department's freight directorate. He argued that the purpose of an inquiry on heavier lorries would be "presentational", and its
fact-finding value … heavily subsidiary
to making the case for the heavier lorry. It would, he said,
offer a way of dealing with political opposition".
That means us—Members of Parliament elected to provide that opposition. The memorandum suggested a way to soften that political opposition
to a more rational position on lorry weights, and an opportunity to the road haulage industry to improve its public image and its organisational cohesiveness".
That is the real answer. The road haulage people who have been behind this all along require an economic return. The argument is economic. It has nothing to do with the environment or the opinions of the people. It is the economic return. Mr. Peeler went on to say that the main objective of the inquiry would be
the establishment in the public mind of a clear and overwhelming case for heavier lorry weights".

Mr. Leadbitter: That is a perfect example of "Yes, Minister".

Mr. Bagier: Yes.
Mr. Peeler, of course, received his just desserts. He no longer heads the freight directorate. He was moved on to quieter pastures—no doubt for proper reasons.
On the basis of what we have heard tonight, can Mr. Peeler's approach be vindicated? Has a clear and overwhelming case for heavier lorries been made that satisfies both Members of Parliament and the public? Certainly, based on the correspondence that I have received, it has not. The public do not want to see heavier lorries.
It looks as if we have a Minister who is conceding the case. He has told us that there will be more consultation and a chance to go into this matter more deeply, but I understand that the only debate we shall have will last one and a half hours on an order. I do not regard that as full consultation, yet that is all that will be allowed for the House to put forward its views. This, therefore, is a false prospectus. I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that that is not so and that we shall have more time for debate so that hon. Members on both sides can discuss this matter.
The suggestion that heavier lorries will mean fewer lorries and that this will be an environmental gain is a plain untruth. It is almost a con on the public to suggest that there will be fewer lorries. If, as we hope, the economy grows, there are bound to be more lorries. It will be to the economic benefit of lorry owners to go for the heavier type that carry larger loads.
According to Armitage, lorry traffic is estimated to grow by a minimum of 28 per cent. by 1990. The high growth figure quoted by Armitage was an increase of 40 per cent. It is a peculiar logic that suggests that a minimum increase of 28 per cent. in lorry loads can be of benefit to the environment. If the Government are so sure that heavier means fewer, perhaps the Minister will spell out how many lorries he believes will be on our roads by 1990. What is the Department's estimate of the number of lorries on our roads? As my right hon. Friend said so forcefully, there has always been an increase in lorry loads, and it is completely bogus to suggest that there will be fewer lorry loads.
The Secretary of State admitted in a written reply last week that it would be perfectly possible for operators to load an extra 1½ tonnes on to their existing 32·5-tonne lorries and that the immediate consequence would be an extra 12 per cent. damage to road surfaces. The Minister admits that fact, yet we hear that he is not convinced that roads will be damaged by heavier loads.
Not a friend in court would back the right hon. Gentleman on that assumption. The only correspondence that I have received that denies that assumption is from the road haulage industry. I do not blame it, because it is to the industry's economic benefit to have larger lorries.
I shall not dwell on what will happen to bridges, because the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) gave the figures and said that a considerable sum of money would be needed to strengthen them
.
It is suggested that underground services will not be affected, but that case has not been proved. The King report on serious gas explosions made it quite clear that such explosions were caused by heavier lorries running on roads above gas mains. It recommended that that should not happen. Whatever the underground services are, be they gas mains or sewers, we should ensure that they are effective.
This proposal also ignores the 1974 City university study that placed the responsibility for pipe failures on heavy vehicular traffic. The White Paper ignores those reports.


It also seems that loading provisions have been ignored in many areas. The right hon. Gentleman has already said that he does not propose to take action on a metering system so that loads can easily be identified. That is an absolute requirement. According to my research, in random checks in Kent over the 12 months from April 1980 to March 1981, nearly 50 per cent. of the lorries were overloaded. Yet, because of Government spending cuts, the enforcement staff were run down by 15 per cent. in 1980. That was in Kent, the garden of England. I hope that Conservative Members, who are keen to put the point to the Minister, will be forceful.
The additional costs of the heavy load will be made up by road and bridge maintenance, bypasses and so on, and will affect the so-called benefit to the consumer. It is difficult to see how there will be an economic advantage to the consumer. In paragraph 4, the White Paper implies that the consumer will see the benefit in more competitive prices in the shops. The right hon. Gentleman owes an explanation to the House, because the economic arguments are absolute rubbish.
It is thought that the saving to the road haulage industry may be about £150 million if it has heavier lorries to carry goods. However, that ignores the fact that user expenditure on road freight last year was £16,700 million, and £150 million is 0·1 per cent. of that. It means a saving of one-tenth of a penny in the pound for the consumer. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear no claptrap from the Minister about the saving for the consumers or the great rake-off they will have from the increase in lorry size.

Mr. Michael Brown: If we accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments for doubting the savings to the consumer, will he tell the House why he and many other hon. Members were so agitated earlier this year on behalf of the road transport industry? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed an extra 20p on derv, arguments were advanced from both sides of the House—and most vociferously from the Opposition—in favour of reducing the duty on dery for the benefit of the haulage industry and, therefore, indirectly, for the benefit of the consumer.

Mr. Bagier: Obviously I should not have given way, because that intervention has nothing to do with the Armitage report on heavier lorries. My case is that the £150 million was the sum estimated to be saved by the road haulage industry and passed on to the consumer. However, that is a bogus case and there would be no real effect on consumer prices.
As a railwayman, I am particularly interested in another section of the report which the Minister has seen fit to ignore—the part on the section 8 grant. If we are trying to improve the environment and, even more important, effect energy conservation, ignoring the section 8 grant is wrong. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this again before saying that he can do nothing about it.
There are thousands of citizens who suffer from the effects of heavy lorries, particularly in small villages, and whose days are made hell by them. No doubt hon. Members representing constituents in small villages will make their case. There is nothing in the White Paper for the towns and villages, although the right hon. Gentleman, after being activated, gave an impressive list of bypass proposals. There are only four extra bypasses included in the Minister's list in the White Paper, over and above the Department of Transport list.
It is slightly unfair and dishonest of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that without the heavier lorries the bypass programme would come to a halt. The bypass programme is desirable not only for heavy lorries but for cars and for the peace and tranquillity of the people in hundreds of towns and villages. As has been said, the larger cities and the ring road programme will get nothing out of the proposal.
Ordinary people will have to pay a high price if heavier lorries are introduced, and there will be no benefits for them, but the road haulage industry has got everything it could have wanted. The Government and the Minister have bent their knees to benefit the road hauliers. They are flying in the face of public opinion. They are flying in the face of the hundreds of thousands of people in Britain who do not want heavier lorries and who will not accept the statistical evidence that has been produced in favour of them. The number of deputations and of people who will be tackling the Minister and his hon. Friends, and also Opposition Members, will show that public opinion is totally against the proposals.
Will the Minister confirm that the only consultation available at the moment is through a debate for an hour and a half on a statutory instrument? If that is not so, will he tell us how the House is to be consulted, and in what way we can stop the introduction of heavier lorries?

Mr. Terence Higgins: I declare an interest as a director of a group of companies whose interests include road transport.
We are debating a matter that raises important issues of timing and politics as well as economics and technology. I welcome the timing of the debate. It is appropriate, after the Secretary of State's announcement, that we should have an opportunity to debate it without delay.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) said about a debate on the orders. It would be entirely wrong if the House were to be allowed only one and a half hours to debate the orders. Having said that, I feel bound to say that the Opposition's motion is premature, since it effectively rules out any opportunity for consultation with my right hon. Friend. Although many of us have already sat through long debates on the Armitage report and had many other discussions, it is important that my right hon. Friend should now listen wth an open mind to what is said on the specific proposals that he has put forward in the White Paper and the supporting documents.
The second important point is the timing of the implementation of the regulations concerning lorry weights in relation to improvements in the environment. That relationship is crucial in this context.
The problem is not one of new, large lorries or new, heavier lorries; it is the problem now created by existing lorries. Apart from a slightly greater length at the front end, which will enable lorries to be quieter as well as better in other respects, the Secretary of State is not proposing an increase in the size of lorries. Indeed, he is proposing, for the first time, to have a limitation on lorry height. These points have not been fully appreciated, either by cartoonists in London newspapers or by the Federation of Sussex Amenity Societies. Bigger lorries are not proposed. Heavier lorries are proposed, and the crucial


question is that of axle weight. In that respect I have important reservations concerning my right hon. Friend's proposals.
I am not convinced that my right hon. Friend has any need to go to 40 tonnes. My impression is that many people in the industry would have been satisfied with 34 or 38 tonnes, and more justification is needed for the limit that is now proposed.
Secondly, I am doubtful about the proposals on 34-tonne lorries on four axles. That is not necessarily a point that ought to be conceded by the Government. Thirdly, I share the views already expressed about the problem of tow-bar trailers and the extra length that they involve. In my view, they are already too large and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary should also consider that point carefully.
I am somewhat sceptical about the economic advantages advanced. The CBI has advanced some very high figures and the Armitage report talks in terms of £150 million a year. We must weigh that potential advantage against the problems that heavier weights are likely to cause.
The Under-Secretary would be right to give his estimate of the effect on the cost of living of the proposed changes, because that is relevant in considering the arguments on one side of the equation and the other.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) placed great stress on the fact that the number of lorries is likely to diminish. They tended to talk in overall terms for the country as a whole, but it is also relevant to consider, for example, the sort of situation that occurs in my constituency and in many others—a factory at the end of a residential street. It is probable that either lorries will not be carrying any heavier loads—depending on their cargoes—or, if they are filled to the maximum allowed weight, the number using that residential street will tend to diminish.
Despite the discussions between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, my right hon. Friend's overall point is crucial to the argument. The number of lorries, compared with what the number would otherwise be—there has been some confusion on that—would diminish as a result of increasing the weights.

Mr. Douglas Jay: rose—

Mr. Higgins: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, many other hon. Members wish to contribute and I want to be as quick as I can in making three more specific points.
First, there is the question of enforcement. In that context, we are discussing the economic benefits to the country if we proceed with what the Government propose. That is clearly something in which the Treasury has an interest. If the Treasury supports the proposals, it is right and proper that it should also supply adequate funds to enable enforcement to be carried out properly. Enforcement is an important issue in the debate and in decisions on future orders.
We would find a great deal less overloading of lorries—whatever limits are determined—if lorries that were found to be overloaded were taken straight off the road at the nearest safe point and not allowed to proceed until the excess load was removed. It would be preferable

if the driver of a lorry had to walk back and tell his employers about that. Such a sanction would probably prove effective.
Another point that I want to make in this context concerns greater safety measures and, particularly, side-guards. I do not understand why we need to delay on safety measures such as side-guards, under-run protection and so on. They should be made a condition of existing lorries being allowed to carry heavier weights. The same should, of course, be true of new lorries. We should not concede the extra weight if we are unable to get the safety measures that are required with them.
Finally, I want to say something on the vexed question of bypasses.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: rose—

Mr. Higgins: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to continue, because I know that he and many other hon. Members want to contribute.
There has been much discussion in the past few days on the state of the economy and whether there is overcrowding as a result of various increases in Government expenditure. The Treasury and Civil Service Committee rejected the argument about overcrowding in physical terms. We do not have a lack of adequate resources with regard to construction industry, road building and so on. I also have considerable doubts about financial crowding out.
Therefore, I return to the point that I made earlier. If the Treasury thinks that the economic arguments are sound, it ought also to provide adequate funds to ensure that the bypasses are built. It is important that we should be clear about the Government's overall plan for bypasses. If we are to go along with what is now proposed, we want a comprehensive plan, covering the country as a whole, of the bypasses that the Government think will eventually be built. The time taken to build bypasses depends to a great extent on the time that is needed to plan and to go through the process of public inquiry, which can be lengthy.
With an overall plan of proposed bypasses I see no reason why many of the procedures that at the moment delay the building of bypasses should not be carries out in advance of the sums being available for their construction. This would persuade many hon. Members that what the Government propose, on merit and in terms of the environment, is intrinsically worth while. There is also a need to take positive steps of the kind that I have sought to summarise.
We should seek to persuade my right hon. Friend in the course of the next two or three months that this kind of action needs to be taken as part of the overall plan that he has in mind that includes the more debatable and difficult question of the actual increase in lorry weights

Mr. Stephen Ross: I shall be brief. In the representations made tonight and those made in the country at large, which the Secretary of State will receive in the period of consultation he has provided, I do not think that he will find that anyone seriously believes that there will be a reduction in the number of heavy lorries. There is every reason to suppose that if weights are increased the size of the average heavy lorry will also increase. There is great scepticism among professional engineers about the


calculation of the road and bridge damage effects of the proposed new lorries. There is anger over the proposal that heavier lorries should come into operation in advance of environmental and safety approval.
The Secretary of State will also be told that law enforcement in road haulage is a travesty and that the present taxation regime discriminates in favour of the heavy lorry and against the railways and the private motorist. If the lorry is to be made more civilised, there is no doubt in my mind that positive steps need to be taken to reduce lorry noise and spray, to improve safety by fitting side-guards, anti-locking systems and better brakes. These matters need attention before weights are increased. I recognise that hauliers need an incentive to make the necessary improvements.
The Secretary of State should consider a package of improvements that will encourage the development of a more acceptable lorry, gain some of the economic benefits of heavier loads and spare the vast majority of the population from additional nuisance. The right hon. Gentleman should be willing to issue special licences to operators who wish to use heavier lorries.
The lorries would have to meet stringent environmental conditions and operate over designated routes. They should be equipped with tractor units with a double-drive axle to ensure that road damage is minimised. They should operate at maximum noise levels of not more than 80 decibels. Such lorries should operate over trunk routes or motorways and normally outside residential areas. The routes should be "permitted routes" cleared beforehand. Such lorries should be specially marked. If they stray from permitted routes, the operator should lose his licence and the driver suffer a heavy personal fine. One advantage would be that own-account and other major operators could take the opportunity of improving productivity. I am not against industry. I want it to be efficient and to take advantage of what is available to improve productivity.
Furthermore, distribution from railheads of fully-loaded containers could be permitted, as in Germany. There would be a much-needed stimulus to the vehicle building industry to meet the new requirements. There would be really stringent safeguards for the population at large.

Mr. Matthew Parris: rose—

Mr. Ross: I am sorry. I intend to sit down in two minutes, if possible. I wish to highlight a constituency problem. The roads on the Isle of Wight are totally unsuited even for the 32½-tonne lorry. Road surfaces are breaking up. The roads on the island were never properly built. Vehicles and buses are shaken to pieces. The same terrible damage is seen throughout the City of London. Pavements, drains and bridges have been broken up.
The people of the Isle of Wight do not share the optimism of the Armitage report about the effects of heavy lorries on carriageway structures. There is concern to maintain the visual amenity of the island. We were not reassured by the statement of the Secretary of State for Transport last week. We regard the advent of the 38 or even 40-tonne lorry with great alarm.
In 1978 we advertised an order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, which would have imposed a ban on all vehicles entering the county with a laden weight exceeding 32·5 tonnes, but we accepted that any such measure would require the consent of the Secretary of

State before it could be implemented. Our latest advice is that such a move is premature, in advance of any Government decision on the matter.
I ask the Secretary of State, in drawing up the regulations, to consider seriously the position of a place such as the Isle of Wight, which cannot take any larger lorries—in fact, it would like to get rid of some of the larger ones that go there now—and to see whether it is possible for a limit to be put on the weight of vehicles which are allowed on our island roads.

Mr. David Crouch: The case for heavier lorries is being made strongly by industry through all the powerful federations and trade associations that represent industry. I have seen such representations. We have heard from those associations that it would save £150 million a year. I agree that there is an economic case for the heavier lorry. However, there is also a case for the people and the environment.
From what we have heard this evening, the Government believe that there is a case for the heavier lorry. They want to give industry this £150 million, and have made a strong case for it. What a wonderful gesture to give industry this handout now. The Government have refused to give industry other major handouts, or to remove burdens from it, but this they want to do. They have refused to take off the national insurance surcharge, or to have another look at high energy costs, but this £150 million is suddenly of vital importance to industry. We have heard this evening that industry spends £16 billion a year on road transport, yet this gesture of £150 million is suddenly of the utmost importance.
What about a gesture to the people? They, too, have a case, but they do not have powerful associations to speak for them, or federations to put their case. They have the Civic Trust, which does a great job in protecting our environment. It is a responsible guardian of our environment and heritage. They also have the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which speaks up for the environment and people.
The people also have a spokesman in every town and village—their Member of Parliament. I speak today just as an ordinary Member of Parliament. My constituents do not want heavier lorries. They want me to speak on their behalf. I have received an enormous mail from all over the country because of some notoriety that I achieved in this connection.
I have seen heavy lorries going through my constituency for the past 16 years. It took 16 years to get the bypass for Canterbury. I am glad that it was opened by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary two months ago, and I am grateful for it. It takes a long time to get a bypass, a lot of persuasion, a lot of argument and sometimes a lot of protests. That is true in many other places, notwithstanding the Minister's agreement to introduce a programme of increased building of bypasses.
In my constituency I have also seen the damage that heavy lorries do to new roads. The Canterbury bypass has just been opened, but there is a five-mile stretch of the A2 leading to it on the London side that is now under extensive repair. That part of the road is a dual carriageway trunk road that was built barely six years ago, and it has been completely broken up during those six years by 32·5-tonne juggernaut lorries on their way to and from Dover and the Continent. Six years' wear and tear


have destroyed a new trunk road. The experts are amazed. The road construction unit is amazed. The county surveyor is amazed. The Department of Transport is amazed. However, my constituents are not amazed. Nor am I. We could see what was happening, as we watched the freight traffic going to and from the Continent. We also knew the figures for the growth of that freight traffic through the port of Dover. In 1967, there were 21,000 lorries. In 1979, 506,000 lorries passed through. We could see what was happening. The new road simply could not stand the strain.
I must not get emotional. I must stick to facts. I am not an anti-lorry man. I am a roads man. I have always been in favour of roads. I have campaigned for roads to take freight traffic, for new bypasses, for motorways and for better trunk roads. I may have succeeded in getting a bypass for Canterbury and for the famous village of Bridge in my constituency, but that is all. That is where my achievements end. There is still no motorway from London to Europe. The M2 stops 20 miles short of Dover, at Brenley corner, and then continues as an A trunk road only. The M20 is not completed and neither is the M25. Hon. Members should look at the chaos where the A2 meets the London sprawl at Falconwood and Welling. When we come a little closer to the heart of London, what do we see? We see juggernauts in Parliament Square. That is ludicrous. The Metropolis is crammed with vast, noisy and evil-smelling vehicles. I am not against them. Of course, we need them. However, we need to prevent them from being so noisy and from emitting foul fumes. We need to inspect them more often. In short, we need to put them under much stricter control for the sake of the people and the environment. They are already a menace. If we give the go-ahead to a further extension of their weight we shall encourage the development of one of the most intrusive dangers to our environment.
Why should industry always be allowed to get its way like this? The time has come to say "No" to its rapacious demands on our way of life. I have had enough of the beguiling arguments that industry must have this and that. Industry must live with society, respect the people and be respected by them in turn. In the nineteenth century, industry sprawled across the Midlands, the North, Wales and Scotland. Today we regulate and control industrial development. We do not allow factories to be built anywhere. Why should we allow heavy lorries to go where they like today? They do not stick to the motorways or trunk roads, and in my constituency lorries that come from Dover deliberately use the minor roads and lanes, often to avoid police checks and weight checks in Canterbury.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a programme for more bypasses, for which I am grateful. That is a move in the right direction, but much more needs to be done before our roads are ready for heavier lorries. It is said that the heavier lorry will not be any bigger. I accept that. It is said that it will be quieter. I do not accept that. It has not happened yet. Government and police controls are simply not effective enough and as the White Paper says, and as I well know, "roadside checks are limited". I understand that vehicles are sometimes inspected only once every four years.
It is said that the new, heavier vehicles will not damage our roads any more than the existing 32-tonne lorries do. I am not prepared to accept that. I want more proof. It is

said that there will be fewer vehicles, but I do not accept that. Every time that lorry weights have been increased the number of lorries has increased. Even the White Paper says that the proposal might stimulate additional traffic. It might. I am not sure. It is said that an accident with the heavier lorry will be only "marginally" more serious. I am appalled at that statement. The case for the 40-tonne lorry—worth £150 million per year to industry—has simply not been made. The story is not convincing. Our roads are not yet ready for them, nor are the people and nor am I. These lorries will have to wait until the case has been proven in fact. Armitage, theory and prototypes are simply not enough. The heavier lorry will have to wait until we have roads fit for the juggernaut of that weight. Now, we must say "No". We have gone far enough already. We must say "No" tonight.

Mr. Les Huckfield: If ever the House had a role to play in the nation's affairs it has been demonstrated tonight in the speech by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be joined in the Lobby by many of his hon. Friends and that they will be prepared to make similar declarations.
I declare an interest as I am sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. The members of that union will be asked to drive the heavier vehicles if the proposal is approved. The union is totally and implacably opposed to the increase in gross vehicle weights.
My main objection is that the Secretary of State has always tried to argue that the Armitage report contains not a single proposal, but a package of proposals. I echo other hon. Members in stressing that only one part of the total Armitage package is to be implemented in the proposals before us. On all other items or ingredients in the report the Secretary of State says that action has been taken already or that he has the power to take action. He does not make any other new proposals.
The Secretary of State is proposing a total change in overall transport policy. It is nothing less than that, and he should not try to conceal it. He must not pretend to the House that only road haulage is affected.
I am worried because the Secretary of State cannot even enforce the present limits on gross vehicle weights. I shall give my reasons for that briefly. A high percentage of goods traffic is carried in containers. It is impossible to know how heavy a container is without weighing mechanisms. Freightliner has an interest in keeping traffic off the road. Even Freightliner is prosecuted because it does not have weighbridges to weigh its containers travelling to and from its depots. That illustrates the seriousness of the problem.
The Freight Transport Association has been persuasive. It has always been a reasonable voice in the road haulage lobby. The diagram in its pamphlet "Industry needs heavier lorries" illustrates the point. It shows that one can put a slightly heavier load in a container if a third axle is fixed, but unless there are weighbridges it is impossible to tell how much there is inside a container.
The Secretary of State must tell the House how he intends not only to increase enforcement powers and restrictions for the present GVW limits, but to step them up if the limit goes up tonight.
I have some worrying figures to give to the House. They come from the right hon. Gentleman's vehicle


testing stations. On 2 December the Secretary of State, in a reply, gave me the figures for successes and failures of heavy goods vehicles processed in his Department's testing stations. It is alarming that since 1975 20 per cent. of vehicles tested in each year failed the test. That means that in 1980–81 147,000 heavy goods vehicles failed the test at his Department's testing stations.
Is the Secretary of State saying that he will put even heavier vehicles on the roads when existing vehicles do not meet the standards set and imposed—at least they should be imposed—by his Department?
It is difficult to enforce the law on foreign vehicles because of the tremendous difficulties of securing arrests and convictions. The Secretary of State, in his answer on 2 December, said that in 1980 about 2,000 of 11,000 foreign vehicles stopped were found to be committing some offence. I have rounded up the figures, but I think that the Secretary of State will agree that I have done that fairly. The majority of those offences were for overloading. In the figures for this year up to September, 1,500 of 8,500 foreign vehicles stopped were found to be committing an offence. Again, the majority of those offences were for overloading.
Those are serious problems. The Secretary of State does not have the weighing mechanisms for weighing containers. His Department's vehicle testing station records show that one fifth of the vehicles that pass through them fail the test and that there is a serious overloading problem with foreign vehicles.
The Secretary of State has omitted so far this evening to present any evidence of the effects of his proposals on preventing a transfer to rail. Many Opposition Members believe that the effect of the implementation of the proposals will be to prevent, not enhance, the prospect of much of that heavier traffic being transferred to rail, which we believe is necessary.
There are many Conservative Members in the House this evening. I can see that there is much concern about what the Secretary of State said tonight. He is trying to tell the world outside and Opposition Members that he has made up his mind and he is trying to tell Conservative Members that he has not made up his mind. I hope that the Minister, when he replies to the debate, will come clean. Has the Secretary of State made up his mind? If the concern that we have heard is echoed in other contributions, I do not believe that he will get this proposal through this evening.
At the end of the day, I and many of my hon. Friends will support the Opposition motion, because we believe that the beneficiaries of the proposals will be not people or the environment, but road hauliers and road haulage profits.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I must declare a constituency interest because I have a large trailer-making firm in my constituency, Crane Fruehauf. That firm is working a three-day week, but its representatives believe that if the Armitage recommendations go through they can increase from three days to five and they can take on more men. It employs the largest number of men of any factory in my constituency. It is important that it should be able to export and compete with other trailer-making firms and give employment to my constituents. Due to the recession the number of people employed in that major factory has been cut.
I believe that the major advantage of the Armitage report is environmental. The report can be held as a pistol at the head of any Government who do not produce the bypasses to back up their programme of enabling heavier vehicles to be carried on the roads. I am convinced that it will give anyone who wishes a bypass for his home town an opportunity to press for it. I also believe that the bypasses must run in conjunction with the introduction of heavier weights.
I have been fortunate in my constituency. We have had three bypasses to the three major towns. However, we still need a bypass in my home town of Downham Market. The main road runs through the centre of town for a mile. For four or five months in the winter we have the sugar beet traffic to the largest factory in Europe, which creates perhaps our greatests problems. An enormous amount of beet is dropped in the street, which is a great danger.
We should support the Government. We should try to investigate the enormous problems caused to individuals by road traffic. Much can be done by the House and in the investigations and consultations that the Government have promised over the next two or three months. I hope that the House will support the amendment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the Front Bench does not seek to start the wind-up until 9.40 pm.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Secretary of State must have noticed that the force of the argument from both sides of the House has not been with him. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants consultations. This is the greatest consultative assembly in the United Kingdom. He is in a dilemma. He says that he has an open mind, but the White Paper does not say that. Paragraph 29 states:
The Government has re-examined very carefully the proposals and the safguards suggested by Armitage, and the questions that have been raised about them during the last year.
The right hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to think about the matter. The paragraph goes on:
The Government has decided"—
That is a precise enough word; it is clear and there is no prevarication about it. It is understood by everyone that the Government have decided—
that it would not be right to go as far as the Report and has rejected"—
that is a firm word—
the 44 tonne maximum it proposed. However the Government is satisfied that the maximum gross weight limit can safely be raised to 34 tonnes for four-axle vehicles and to 40 tonnes on five axles.
Will the right hon. Gentleman be frank? Where does he stand on the consultative process? As I made clear earlier, real consultation should be underwritten in the notion of a Green Paper and not a White Paper, in which the Government's mind is made up.
The matter is of great importance. Our road systems are not built to carry 40-tonne lorries. We already have great problems with our underground services, such as drainage and sewerage. That factor has not been evaluated in talking of a £150 million benefit to industry—and even that is a fictitious figure.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that the Secretary of State had been sold a pup. Not only that, he has become the parrot for his Department. The real


truth of Armitage is this. The preconceived notion of a 40-tonne lorry has been wrapped up in a package to make it suitable to the House, but we are not buying it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am slightly confined by time, but I am glad to be so because I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members have been more confined than I am and many have been excluded from the debate. In the short time that we have had for the debate many questions have been asked, not only about the White Paper but about the evidence that lies behind it and its conclusions. 
The big question that hon. Members must ask themselves, having legitimately asked questions on behalf of their constituency interests, is whether they will wait for an answer. I admit that I cannot give an answer to all the questions that have been raised in the short time that is available to me. I shall give better answers when the debate has developed further and we are clearer about the factual basis upon which we are arguing the case for or against heavy lorries. 
The White Paper is white because it contains clear propositions, the bulk of which are not controversial. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) criticised the syntax very effectively and I concede to him on that as I concede to him on many transport matters. Many of the proposals about noise, safety, bypasses, and so on are not unpopular. They are merely criticised because of the pace of delivery. The one proposal on which the debate has concentrated is that of heavy lorry weights. Nothing in the White Paper decides that. Nothing that we say tonight will decide it. The Government have merely announced that they are consulting on a form of regulations. They are suggesting and putting out for consultation possible changes in lorry weights. 
There may come a time when firm regulations are laid before the House, either in the form upon which consultations are being held or in a different form. At some stage thereafter the House will be called upon to make a decision. An hon. Member asked how much time we would have for debate. He asked whether it would be one and a half hours. It is not for me to decide the timetable of the House, but it would be extraordinary if we were asked to consider the matter in one and a half hours. I do not think that any hon. Member would let the Government get away with a debate of that length. 
The Government say that the decision can be taken after a month or two of serious consideration and Parliament, in the end, will make a more sensible decision because we shall be arguing on the basis of principle, opinion and judgment about our constituents. At present we are arguing the toss about the factual evidence on the Armitage report, which itself is highly complex, and on a White Paper that we have had before us for less than a week. The answer is highly complex. However the House may feel, it does not owe the Government the time to consider the matter further, but there are interest groups to which time is owed. 
The House must consider the matter carefully before it plunges to a final decision on vehicle weights, which will obviously be decisive for many years ahead because the planning of roads, vehicle construction, and so on, must go ahead on the basis of the conclusions that we reach. The

environmental groups must be considered because there is a clear division of opinion on the evidence and on the facts about what benefits the environment in villages and towns. We must also consider the many people who believe that their businesses and jobs depend on the House getting the decision right. 
I do not wish to criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who made a very reasonable speech. He reminded the House of the concern that he has expressed in recent debates in the House about the state of British Industry. I do not think that the Government should shrink from criticisms that are directed constructively towards doing something to help the state of British industry. However, many in British industry say that many factors depend upon the decision on the Armitage report. The Government's estimate is a saving of only £150 million each year. The CBI considers that to be an underestimate. 
There are vehicle manufacturers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) and elsewhere who have serious doubts about how much longer we shall have a heavy vehicle manufacturing industry in this country if we continue to build vehicles designed for the home market that are not the same as those in our major markets overseas. The trailer manufacturers are at present in a major recession. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they will not be grateful to a House that throws the case out six days after the publication of the White Paper proposing it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry; I have no time.

Mr. Hughes: It is a bit naughty of the Minister to wish to refuse to give way. He knows very well that I gave up my right to reply to the debate in order to enable Back Benchers to speak. He should not complain about a shortage of time. I could have taken time from his speech. The Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State says that we are trying to bounce the House into a decision. That is not so. The circular that the Government sent out plainly states that comments on lorry weights must be with the Department not later than 31 January 1982. That is next month. There is no such date for consultations on the White Paper. We fear that a decision will be taken on lorry weights without the knowledge of what the Government intend to do about other aspects of the White Paper.

Mr. Clarke: There is a statutory requirement to consult, and we have given two months for responses. The Government will then have to decide their view in the light of outside representations. They will have to take serious notice of parliamentary opinion—[Interruption.] I deliberately understated that. After those two months the Government will have to decide whether they will, in the light of the consultation and debate, bring forward regulations. The regulations must be laid before the House, which will have an opportunity to debate them and reach decisions. 
Whatever conclusion the House reaches, it will at least have listened to the serious representations from outside. I refer hon. Members to letters in this morning's press from representatives of the Council of British Shipping. They may be right or wrong. It is obvious that in its present mood the House will not allow me to persuade it on the


factual evidence about the state of British shipping. The representatives are arguing that our international trade is at a serious disadvantage because our exports are going to sea in underloaded containers. We are burdening our trade with costs that are not shared by our international competitors.
The House does not have to take that from me—indeed, it will not. It does not have to take it from the representatives of the Council of British Shipping. We have not yet reached that clear understanding of the issues and the evidence—because of opportunism by the Opposition in tabling the motion—to allow the House to throw out all the proposals the day that those letters first appeared, and less than a week after the White Paper was published.
I shall not belabour the problems of the manufacturers such as Sainsburys, the milk manufacturers, the brewers, ICI and all the other lobbyists. They may be wrong. It may be right that the House should not, on this occasion, prefer the needs of industry. It may prefer arguments against that. But with respect, we have not yet reached the stage in debate where the House should say that firmly.

Sir Russell Fairgrieve: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, if the White Paper and the Armitage recommendations are not implemented, Scotland, and especially the far North, will be at a competitive disadvantage because of the cost of transport?

Mr. Clarke: The economic case is stronger the further we go from the main centres. The case is stronger for industry in Scotland, Wales and the West Country. In those areas people are pressing for road building to reduce their industrial costs.

Mr. Peyton: If my hon. and learned Friend is convinced about the strength of his case, will he rewrite the White Paper in a less sloppy and more convincing form? As I suggested earlier, will he take it away and pulp it?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend did not resume his seat earlier until I conceded to him his fair criticism of the syntax. I am glad to take lessons from my right hon. Friend on the construction of White Papers, and indeed on transport policy. Half the trouble may be that the syntax is not quite as it might be. I ask my right hon. Friend, as he was inclined to concede in his speech, to allow the Government time to make their case more clearly and to retain an open mind that, in the end, the case may go the other way. Tonight we are talking about the quality of decision making. We owe it to those outside, as well as ourselves, to give time for serious consultation within which we can agree the factual evidence and reach a conclusion.

Mr. Roger Moate: Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that all the outside organisations to which he has referred and all the representations were taken into account by the Armitage committee, or is he saying that it did not consider them? The Armitage conclusions have been considered by the House in a number of debates. If he is saying that there is a genuine process of consultation and that the Government have not really taken a decision, will he say, clearly and without qualification, that this is no longer a White Paper but a Green Paper?

Mr. Clarke: All the representations were considered by the Armitage committee. The committee considered a great deal of evidence and it came to a conclusion with which my hon. Friend disagrees. In the White Paper the Government have come to a tentative conclusion with which he disagrees. The difference between the proposed weight changes and almost all the other proposals contained in the White Paper is that the weight changes require a specific legislative change that in due course will have to be submitted to the House. I have described the statutory process to which the Government are subject and I think that I have committed the Government to using the statutory time to consider their position before returning to the House with their proposals. My hon. Friend cannot object to the time that the Government are providing for debate. There will be yet another full opportunity to debate the alternatives.
I do not think that I have overstated the industrial case. The Government are asking the House at least to listen to it. There are those outside who are trying to earn a living in business, and jobs are at stake. If I were involved in trying to make a living in vehicle manufacturing, retail distribution, brewing or farming, I should be pretty cheesed off with a House of Commons that rejected arguments out of hand because of plain misunderstandings in all directions on the evidence.
Environmental issues are obviously at the root of the concern. There is not an hon. Member who is openly against British industry. There are a few who represent the Transport and General Workers Union and they are the only ones who are so far convinced that "heavier" means fewer lorries and therefore fewer lorry drivers.
The environmental case concerns the Government as much as anyone else. I have heard critics who are plainly concerned about the environmental effects of these proposals, especially on those living in towns and villages. I and all my right hon. and hon. Friends are in favour of protecting the environment. We may be mistaken, but our intention is the same. We believe that these proposals could improve the environment in towns and villages.
There are organisations that exist to protect rural England. I am in favour of protecting rural England and I represent rather a good chunk of it. Most of the opponents of this measure dislike heavy lorries. I can join them immediately. I detest heavy lorries. I have not met a civilised inhabitant of the British Isles who believes that they are objects that one can learn to love.
We are discussing whether the Government are right. We are not querying their intentions. Are the Government right in their belief that the package that is proposed in the White Paper will improve the environment?

Mr. Spriggs: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I hope that the House will accept that we are all for improving the environment, that we are all in favour of protecting rural England and that there are not many constituents who like heavy lorries and want more of them. If that is accepted, the question is a factual one. It is not good enough merely to say "I want to protect the environment". In a modern industrial society the protection of the environment involves a degree of mechanical and engineering knowledge as well as enthusiasm. It involves also a degree of application to transport economics, to engineering, to statistical evidence of the past and some knowledge of likely changes in


freight movements in future. That is the evidence that must be weighed by the House and by the country before deciding, if the Government propose changes of the sort that have been put forward so far, whether it is right to believe that the proposals will improve the environment.
The case that carried the Armitage committee and the belief with which it was left after hearing all the evidence—it was the case that carried the Government into producing the White Paper and consulting on the draft regulations—was the one that accepted that the effect would be fewer, quieter and safer lorries. Scepticism about that is understandable. It may even be justified when the House has had a full opportunity to examine the evidence, but that is the purpose behind the proposals and there is an environmental benefit.
If the House rushes to a decision and rejects this, those who have expressed real passion about how much they wish to protect their towns, which have no bypasses, or their particular piece of rural England, will have got it wrong. They will actually have done damage if, when they consider the evidence, they are persuaded that we should stay as we are—and who in the House would defend the present arrangement—with no change? I put it to hon. Members that it is at least possible that when they examine the evidence they will find that they have saddled their towns with more and noisier lorries in the present fleet until the bypass can be built.
With regard to the bypass programme, I have not yet dealt with the selective use of statistics by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). The programme is being fully pursued and maintained. If one looks properly at the parliamentary question which he quoted, one sees that the miles to be opened go in the right direction in 1983. The programme is well within the Government's control. Not only is it being maintained; it has remained unscathed by the Chancellor's cuts, because the cuts that he has been able to make merely match the savings made on the tender prices in line with the original estimates.
We are continually adding bypasses to the programme. Some people seized on the small number of additions that were announced and suggested that that meant only four bypasses. But they are in addition to the full programme that we are delivering. Four quite big bypasses were announced in July this year, to be built next year. They include a bypass for Chapel-en-le-Frith, where there is a heavy lorry problem. Four more have been announced in the White Paper and seven have been promoted to the main programme from the reserve programme.
This is not our last word on the roads programme. We are committed to producing a White Paper on roads very shortly that will update and roll forward the programme from the last White Paper on roads. By rolling forward the programme, we shall be able to put new and specific dates on dozens of roads at present described in the programme as post-1984, giving fresh hope to those waiting for them.
Given that I am today asking the House for time for a sensible debate, I should make it clear that the White Paper on roads will be published and available to the House well before there can be any question of our laying regulations or asking the House for a decision on any change in weights that the Government may be still minded to make after the end of the consultation period.
If I singled out one argument in conclusion, the one which dominated many speeches and is perhaps one of the most popular worries is how to enforce the weight limits. There was understandable concern about the damage at present being done by lorries. All this public outcry was really set up by a reaction to what is happening now. People ask what we are doing about enforcement, and there has been criticism.
It has been pointed out that the number of vehicle examiners in post has not increased substantially. But that is because we are carrying out more roadside checks by providing the present manpower with better equipment. Dynamic axle weighers are being introduced, for example. In two months I might be able to explain the mechanics of that to my hon. Friends, but I know from its performance that this equipment enables us to check more lorries. We already have 31 dynamic axle weighers in operation and a further four will be operational by next spring. We spent £350,000 on this in 1979–80. A further £350,000 is being spent this year. The estimate for next year has been increased to £400,000. We shall continue the purges on foreign lorries coming in at the channel ports and Holyhead to try to reduce the present overloading. It is, of course, essential that we introduce a better fleet which does less damage and that we eliminate the overloading from which we at present suffer.
That is the position so far as one can take the matter today. It has been a rushed debate and this has been a rushed speech—I have only three minutes left. This is a considered White Paper. There is no question of final conclusions being made about it at this stage. I ask my hon. Friends to reject what is in fact an exercise in political opportunism. They had only to listen to the contribution from the Social Democrats—slipping in the brief phrase that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) was in favour of heavier lorries but then saying that he would vote against them today—to realise that there is a deal of political opportunism about. Let us have a sensible decision that considers all views on all sides.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 296.

Division No. 21]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)


Adams, Allen
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Alexander, Richard
Canavan, Dennis


Allaun, Frank
Carmichael, Neil


Alton, David
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Anderson, Donald
Cartwright, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, joe
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey)
Coleman, Donald


Bagier, GordonA.T.
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)
Cook, Robin F.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Cowans, Harry


Beith, A.J.
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Crouch, David


Body, Richard
Crowther, Stan


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cryer, Bob


Boothroyd, MissBetty
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Cunningham, G.(IslingtonS)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n,)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Davidson, Arthur


Brown, Hon(E'burgh, Leith)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Callaghan, RtHonJ.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)






Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Kilfedder, JamesA.


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Neil


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David


Dewar, Donald
Lamborn, Harry


Dickens, Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted


Dixon, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Douglas, Dick
Litherland, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunlop, John
Lyon, Alexander(York)


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McCartney, Hugh


Eadie, Alex
McDonald, DrOonagh


Eastham, Ken
McElhone, Frank


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
McGuire, Michael(Ince)


Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)
McKelvey, William


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McMahon, Andrew


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McNally, Thomas


Evans, John (Newton)
McNamara, Kevin


Ewing, Harry
McTaggart, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
McWilliam, John


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)


Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)


Foster, Derek
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Foulkes, George
Maxton, John


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Freud, Clement
Meacher, Michael


Garrett, John (NorwichS)
Mikardo, Ian


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M.S. (EKilbride)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)


Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)


Golding, John
Moate, Roger


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Molyneaux, James


Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell,)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Murphy, Christopher


Hardy, Peter
Newens, Stanley


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
O'Halloran, Michael


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Neill, Martin


Haynes, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Palmer, Arthur


Heffer, Eric S.
Park, George


Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)
Parker, John


Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Parris, Matthew


HomeRobertson, John
Parry, Robert


Homewood, William
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Horam, John
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Howells, Geraint
Prescott, John


Hoyle, Douglas
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Huckfield, Les
Race, Reg


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Mark(Durham)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson,Jo


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert(Normanton,)


Janner, HonGreville
Roberts, Allan(Bootle)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)


John, Brynmor
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rooker, J. W.


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roper, John


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Kerr, Russell
Ryman, John





Sever, John
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Sheerman, Barry
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wainwright, E. (DearneV)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wainwright, R(Colne V)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David


Silverman, Julius
Weetch, Ken


Skinner, Dennis
Wellbeloved, James


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Welsh, Michael


Snape, Peter
White, Frank R.


Soley, Clive
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Spearing, Nigel
Whitehead, Phillip


Spriggs, Leslie
Whitlock, William


Stallard, A.W.
Wigley, Dafydd


Steel, Rt Hon David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Williams, Rt Hon A.  (S'sea W)


Stoddart, David
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)


Stott, Roger
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton,)


Straw, Jack
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Summerskill, HonDrShirley
Winnick, David


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woodall, Alec


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wright, Sheila


Thomas, Mike(Newcastle E,)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)



Tilley,John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tinn, James
Mr. George Morton and Mr. Allen McKay.


Torney, Tom





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clegg, Sir Walter


Ancram, Michael
Cockeram, Eric


Arnold, Tom
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Cormack, Patrick


Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)
Corrie, John


Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)
Costain, SirAlbert


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone,)
Cranborne, Viscount


Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Banks, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.


Bell, Sir Ronald
Dover, Denshore


Bendall, Vivian
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Benyon,W. (Buckingham)
Durant, Tony


Besi, Keith
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Elliott, Sir William


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Emery, Peter


Blackburn, John
Eyre, Reginald


Blaker, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bottomley, Peter(W'which W)
Farr, John


Bowden, Andrew
Fell, Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bright, Graham
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Brinton Tim
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brittan, Rt.Hon.Leon
Fletche r, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp; Sc'n,)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Browne,John(Winchester)
Forman, Nigel


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fox, Marcus


Buchanan-Smith, Rt.Hon.A.
Fraser, Peter(SouthAngus)


Buck, Antony
Fry, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Gardiner, George(Reigate)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butcher, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, John (LutonWest)
Goodhew, Victor


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Chalker, Mrs.Lynda
Gorst, John


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Gow, Ian


Churchill, W.S.
Gower, Sir Raymond


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)






Gray, Hamish
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Monro, SirHector


Griffiths, PeterPortsm'thN)
Montgomery, Fergus


Grist, Ian
Moore, John


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David


Hannam, John
Myles, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Hastings, Stephen
Needham, Richard


Hawkins, Paul
Nelson, Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Normanton, Tom


Heddle, John
Nott, Rt Hon John


Henderson, Barry
Onslow, Cranley


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Osborn, John


Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Holland, Philip(Carlton,)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hooson, Tom
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hordern, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Percival, Sir Ian


Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pink, R.Bonner


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Porter, Barry


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Johnson, Smith, Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raison, Timothy


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rathbone, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Renton, Tim


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lamont, Norman
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Hugh


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rost, Peter


Lee, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


LeMarchant, Spencer
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott, Nicholas


Lems, Kenneth(Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp;W'loo)
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Loveridge. John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Smith, Dudley


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Spence, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Sproat, Iain


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Marlow, Antony
Stainton, Keith


Marshall, Michael(Arundel)
Stanley, John


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stevens, Martin


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mawhinney, DrBrian
Stokes, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mellor, David
Tapsell, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miller, Hal(B'grove,)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman





Temple-Morris, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Ward, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Thompson, Donald
Watson, John


Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)
Wells, Bowen


Thornton, Malcolm
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Townend, John(Bridlington)
Wheeler, John


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Trippier, David
Whitney, Raymond


Trotter, Neville
Wickenden, Keith


van Straubenzee, SirW.
Wiggin, Jerry


Vaughan, DrGerard
Wilkinson, John


Viggers, Peter
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Waddington, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Wakeham, John
Wolfson, Mark


Waldegrave, Hon William
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Walker, B. (Perth)



Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Tellers for the Noes:


Wall, Sir Patrick
Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Carol Mather.


Waller, Gary

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 255.

Division No. 22]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clegg, SirWalter


Ancram, Michael
Cockeram, Eric


Arnold, Tom
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, John


Atkins, Rt HonH. (S'thorne)
Cormack, Patrick


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Corrie, John


Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)
Costain, SirAlbert


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Cranborne, Viscount


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Banks, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.


Bell, SirRonald
Dover, Denshore


Bendall, Vivian
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Dunn, Robe rt(Dartford)


Best, Keith
Durant, Tony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
Elliott, Sir William


Blackburn, John
Emery, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Eyre, Reginald


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bowden, Andrew
Farr, John


Braine, SirBernard
Fell, Anthony


Bright, Graham
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brinton, Tim
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Brittan, Rt.Hon.Leon
Fisher, SirNigel


Brooke, HonPeter
Fletcher, A(Ed'nb'gh N)


Brotherton, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles


Brown,Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n,)
Fookes, MissJanet


Browne, John(Winchester)
Forman, Nigel


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fox, Marcus


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Buck, Antony
Fry, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Gardiner, George(Reigate)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Burden, SirFrederick
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butcher, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Glyn, DrAlan


Carlisle, John (LutonWest)
Goodhew, Victor


Carliste, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Chalker, Mrs.Lynda
Gorst, John


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Gow, Ian


Churchill, W.S.
Gower, SirRaymond






Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Millen, Hal(B'grove)


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)


Griffiths, E. (B 'ySt. Edm 'ds)
Monro, SirHector


Griffiths, PeterPortsm'thN)
Montgomery, Fergus


Grist, Ian
Moore, John


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hampson, DrKeith
Mudd, David


Hannam, John
Murphy, Christopher


Haselhurst, Alan
Myles, David


Hastings, Stephen
Neale, Gerrard


Hawkins, Paul
Needham, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Nelson, Anthony


Hayhoe, Barney
Neubert, Michael


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Newton, Tony


Heddle, John
Normanton, Tom


Henderson, Barry
Nott, Rt Hon, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon MrsS.


Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Osborn, John


Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)
Percival, SirIan


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Pink, R.Bonner


Hurd, HonDouglas
Pollock, Alexander


Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)
Porter, Barry


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Johnson, Smith, Geoffrey
Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine
Rathbone, Tim


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Kimball, SirMarcus
Renton, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
RhodesJames, Robert


Knight, MrsJill
RhysWilliams, SirBrandon


Knox, David
Ridley, HonNicholas


Lamont, Norman
Ridsdale, SirJulian


Lang, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Langford-Holt, SirJohn
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Latham, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rossi, Hugh


Lee, John
Rost, Peter


LeMarchant, Spencer
Royle, SirAnthony


Lennox-Boyd, HonMark
Sainsbury, HonTimothy


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland,)
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian (Havant&amp; W'loo)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Loveridge, John
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Sims, Roger


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Skeet, T. H. H.


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Smith, Dudley


McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Speed, Keith


McQuarrie, Albert
Spence, John


Madel, David
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Major, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Antony
Squire, Robin


Marshall, Michael(Arundel)
Stainton, Keith


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Stanley, John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stevens, Martin


Mawby, Ray
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Mawhinney, DrBrian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mayhew, Patrick
Stokes, John


Mellor, David
StradlingThomas,J.


Meyer, SirAnthony
Tapsell, Peter





Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Waller, Gary


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Walters, Dennis


Temple-Morris, Peter
Ward, John


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Warren, Kenneth


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Watson, John


Thompson, Donald
Wells, Bowen


Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Thornton, Malcolm
Wheeler, John


Townend, John(Bridlingoton)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Whitney, Raymond


Trippier, David
Wickenden, Keith


Trotter, Neville
Wiggin, Jerry


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wilkinson, John


Vaughan, DrGerard
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Waddington, David
Wolfson, Mark


Wakeham, John
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Waldegrave, HonWilliam
Younger, Rt Hon George


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)



Walker, B. (Perth)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Carol Mather.


Wall, SirPatrick





NOES


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick


Adams, Allen
Dubs, Alfred


Allaun, Frank
Dunlop, John


Alton, David
Dunn, James A.


Anderson, Donald
Dunnett, Jack


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Eastham, Ken


Bagier, GordonA.T.
Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
English, Michael


Beith, A.J.
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry


Body, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Flannery, Martin


Boothroyd, MissBetty
Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)


Bottomley, RtHonA. (M'b'ro)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ford, Ben


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Forrester, John


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)
Foulkes, George


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)
Freud, Clement


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Carmichael, Neil
George, Bruce


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cartwright, John
Ginsburg, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Graham, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Grant, George(Morpeth)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
G rant, John (Islington C)


Cook, Robin F.
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cowans, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Crawshaw, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Crowther, Stan
Haynes, Frank


Cryer, Bob
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Heffer, Eric S.


Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n)
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Dalyell, Tam
Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Davidson, Arthur
HomeRobertson, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Homewood, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooley, Frank


Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)
Horam, John


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Deakins, Eric
Howells, Geraint


Dempsey, James
Hoyle, Douglas


Dewar, Donald
Huckfield, Les


Dixon, Donald
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Dobson, Frank
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Dormand, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)






Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Maxton, John


Janner, HonGreville
Maynard, MissJoan


Jay, RtHonDouglas
Meacher, Michael


John, Brynmor
Mikardo, Ian


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Johnson, Walter (DerbyS)
Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Molyneaux, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Kerr, Russell
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Kilfedder, JamesA.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Morton, George


Kinnock, Neil
Mulley, RtHon Frederick


Lambie, David
Newens, Stanley


Lamborn, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael


Leighton, Ronald
O'Neill, Martin


Lestor, Miss Joan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Lewis, Arthu r (N'ham NW)
Palmer, Arthur


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Park, George


Litherland, Robert
Parker, John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Parry, Robert


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Pavitt, Laurie


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)
Penhaligon, David


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Pitt, WilliamHenry


McCartney, Hugh
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


McDonald, DrOonagh
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


McElhone, Frank
Prescott, John


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Race, Reg


McKelvey, William
Radice, Giles


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Maclennan, Robert
Richardson, Jo


McMahon, Andrew
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


McNally, Thomas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McNamara, Kevin
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


McTaggart, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


McWilliam, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Magee, Bryan
Rooker, J. W.


Marks, Kenneth
Roper, John


Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rowlands, Ted





Ryman, John
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Sever, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Sheerman, Barry
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Silkin, RtHon J. (Deptford)
Watkins, David


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Weetch, Ken


Silverman, Julius
Wellbeloved, James


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
White, Frank R.


Snape, Peter
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Soley, Clive
Whitehead, Phillip


Spearing, Nigel
Whitlock, William


Spriggs, Leslie
Wigley, Dafydd


Stallard, A.W.
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E)


Stoddart, David
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Stott, Roger
Wilson, William (C'trySE)


Strang, Gavin
Winnick, David


Straw, jack
Woodall, Alec


Summerskill, HonDrShirley
Woolmer, Kenneth


Taylor, MrsAnn (Bolton W)
Wright, Sheila


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)



Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tilley, John
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean.


Tinn, James



Torney, Tom

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, believing that environmental and social problems arising from heavy lorries must be tackled comprehensively and vigorously and that industry should be helped to keep down transport costs, welcomes the Government's commitment to a continuing and substantial programme of by-pass construction to which further additions are steadily being made, and considers that decisions should not be taken on the White Paper until there has been adequate time to consider fully all the measures proposed in the light of consultations on the draft amending Regulations published for that purpose.

Clinical Mishap (Investigation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health for having come to the House to reply to this important and significant debate. His action reflects the importance that he attaches to the subject and it is always pleasing to know that a Minister properly appreciates public concern. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) for being present in the Chamber. I know how keenly he has followed this issue.
The matter that I raise came to light as a result of events following the terrible mishap that befell my constituent, Mr. David Woodhouse. Briefly the position is that Mr. Woodhouse, a very fit man, aged 27—with a young wife and four small children—entered Hereford county hospital on 14 May with appendicitis. During the course of, I understand, a comparatively minor operation by today's standards, something went very wrong. As a result, he lapsed into a coma and I believe that he has suffered considerable brain damage. He is still in a coma seven months later.
I am informed that immediately the mishap occurred the hospital set in action the machinery set out in the Department's guidelines, HM (55)66 "The Reporting of Accidents in Hospitals". As a result of a complaint, the area health authority moved to set up an inquiry under the guidelines set out in HM (66)15. The Medical Defence Union then intervened and advised the doctors concerned not to take part in any area health authority inquiry into the mishap. At first, I was puzzled about the reasons for that. As far as I can make out, that advice was given because participation might prejudice the doctors' rights in any civil law proceedings that might follow. The background to that lies in the decision made in the case of Waugh v. the British Railways Board in July 1979, which undermines the legal privilege of evidence given to an inquiry.
The Medical Defence Union's concern is understandable, but in the absence of public understanding, much more base motives have been ascribed to its actions. Dark allegations have been made to me that the Medical Defence Union is merely seeking to minimise its financial exposure, and that it is seeking to delay because it is cheaper to settle on behalf of a dead man than a living man. They are not pleasant allegations.
This situation has caused immense concern throughout the country, not least in Herefordshire. I emphasise that, although the worry has its epicentre in Herefordshire, it has spread from one end of the country to the other. Indeed, it is reasonable to say that there is now wide recognition in all parts of the Health Service that there is a yawning hole in the investigative procedures into clinical mishaps.
The National Association of Community Health Councils supported wholeheartedly the call by the Herefordshire community health council for something to be done to remedy the situation. I am informed that the regional medical officers, as a body, are disturbed at the action by the MDU. It is feared that it represents an attitude that could lead to a block to all future health authority inquiries into medical mishaps.
Not all such inquiries lead to civil law proceedings. Often it is sufficient for the complainant or his relatives to be satisfied that such an occasion cannot happen again. Nobody wants recourse to the civil courts to be the only method of establishing fact. If that becomes the only way of getting at the facts, we can be certain that litigation will proliferate. That is just what the Medical Defence Union does not want to happen. It is a deplorable aspect of the American medical scene where litigation is every doctor's perpetual nightmare.
As the area health authority is unable to initiate an inquiry that would have any value, recourse must be to a higher power. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that the buck stops with him. It seems that there is no stopping short of an inquiry under section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977.
Referring to the tragic Woodhouse case, the Minister will recall that he has been asked to set up a section 84 inquiry by myself, the area health authority and the community health council. In each case he has seen fit to refuse. In his letter of 8 September to the area health authority he says that he considers it to be "a one off case" that does not suggest deep rooted failures in the service such as would be likely to give rise to national concern. The duties and powers entrusted to the Secretary of State in clauses 1 and 2 of the 1977 Act are wide and sweeping—one might say that they are onerous.
The failure to be able to initiate an inquiry is a deep-rooted failure of the service. The failure to initiate an inquiry is far more likelly to give rise to national concern. I beg the Secretary of State to reconsider on the basis of his criteria set out in his letter of 8 September.
The people of Hereford have a real interest. All parties want to know what is happening—and rightly. The Woodhouse parents have been to see me. The hospital sector administrator is reported by The Hereford Times as saying:
If there is not going to be an inquiry I am disgusted.
In a letter to the Minister on 24 November, the area health authority states:
The position of the Authority is that the cause of the incident is obscure; that the best—and probably only—way of establishing the cause is to set up an inquiry attended by all the relevant staff and that a civil Lawsuit cannot be relied upon to achieve the objective.
The medical staff also want an inquiry. Who can blame them? They feel that the hospital is under a cloud. The Observer quotes the anaesthetist as saying:
an inquiry would be best for all. … An inquiry would be a good thing.
The community health council, in its letter to the Minister dated 16 September advised him of a resolution stating:
The problems raised by the inability of the AHA to promote a full inquiry into the case of an incident involving David Woodhouse cause grave concern and in our opinion such inability is against the best interest of the public, the health authority and the medical profession.
Those are massive representations from Herefordshire and I know that they are very much reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster.
It is a reflection on the excellent standards and achievement of the Health Service that it has taken nearly two years for an incident such as this to show up the appalling gap in investigative ability in the event of clinical mishap. It is not reasonable to say, as the Minister said, that the proper procedure now is through the courts. What happens if the parties to litigation settle out of court? Then we shall never know and the public's genuine interest


will not be served. What happens if it takes two years to get the case heard in court? Should the public have to wait that long to find out whether negligence or incompetence was the cause? Will they be charged with confidence in their hospitals and in their surgeons if they believe that when anything goes wrong it could take up to two years after the accident to find out about it? 
The Minister's letter of 10 November 1981 implies human error and caused more than a little confusion. I cannot help but feel that the Minister was not correctly advised about that. I do not allege that any of those factors are behind the case. I do not deny that I am anxious to know, but the public would not be natural if they did not suspect some or other of those causes to be the case. If it was incompetence or carelessness, would the public interest be well served by having a two-year period without correction?
Those are legitimate concerns to the public, who use the National Health Service and subscribe a not insubstantial part of their incomes to it. They must not be let down. There is a need for an urgent review of the current position. I am not putting forward solutions this evening, but I hope that they will emerge from discussions and consultations with all parties potentially involved. I hope also that the Minister will tell me this evening that he will consider the proposal seriously and put consultations in hand forthwith.
With regard to the Woodhouse case, I still believe that a section 84 agreement is not inappropriate in the light of the current state of play. It seems to be the only way in which an answer can be obtained reasonably speedily within the present restraints. I hope that the Minister will think along those lines.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought this matter before the House, because some important principles are involved.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that I fully share my hon. Friend's concern about this tragic case, and I wish to express my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Woodhouse and her family. My hon. Friend has raised a number of serious points, especially about the steps available to health authorities to pursue inquiries into such situations.
This may turn out to be a tragic but isolated local incident that could not have been foreseen, but, whatever the cause, I am in no doubt at all that health authorities should be able to know as far as possible exactly what happened and why. It is then a basic responsibility of the health authority to ensure, again as far as possible, that it does not happen again. We must be certain that whatever went wrong will not be repeated. In order to do that, we must know exactly what went wrong.
In most cases it is enough for officers of the authority to inquire of the staff concerned and make a report. If that is not sufficient, the authority can appoint a panel of its members to consider the matter. Exceptionally, a formal inquiry by the health authority can be set up, with a chairman and members completely independent of the authority. Those are all essentially fact-finding procedures.
Fortunately, such serious mishaps occur rarely. When they do, the responsibility for taking the necessary action right away lies squarely with the health authority. In most cases I am glad to say that the procedures work very well.
If necessary, but only in special circumstances, the Secretary of State can set up an inquiry under section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977. The inquiry can summon witnesses and take evidence on oath. The powers for that are extensive, as my hon. Friend rightly said, but setting up such an inquiry is a major procedure. It takes a long time and it must call upon experienced and eminent people. It is also an expensive process. In practice, it has been used only rarely—usually where the matter causes national concern.
We are discussing a situation which, to my regret, has not been resolved so far. Public anxiety has not been allayed, and it is important that it should be.
Press reports and letters suggest that in this case the Hereford and Worcester health authority has been unable to establish the cause of the incident, so it has not been able to say—and that is extremely important—that it is reasonably sure that it has done all that it could to prevent a recurrence. That is a very serious situation.
I understand that soon after the incident occurred, inquiries were made of the hospital staff. A report was made by the district administrator based on statements from the staff, including the medical staff involved in the operation. Soon after, a technical expert from my Department, at the authority's request, examined the anaesthetic equipment which had been used in the operation. He found no defects which could have been the cause of the patient being deprived of oxygen. The reports were considered by the authority, which proposed that there should be further inquiries by a formal independent inquiry set up by the authority.
At that stage the Medical Defence Union made it clear that, because civil proceedings were then a very real possibility it would have to advise its members not to cooperate with the inquiry—that is the Waugh problem—so that their position in such proceedings would not be prejudiced. As a result, the authority decided not to set up an inquiry, because it would have no power to compel the attendance of witnesses. It decided instead to press me on behalf of the Secretary of State to set up a section 84 inquiry, under which witnesses could be required to attend, whatever advice they had received. That inquiry would be a statutory inquiry and take evidence on oath.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern and that of the authority in wishing to have further inquiries made in a thorough and impartial manner, but knowing that in the absence of important witnesses it could turn out to be inconclusive. I gave the most careful consideration to the authority's request, but, in view of the major process of setting up a section 84 inquiry I did not feel that a full inquiry was the right answer unless it proved absolutely essential.
As my hon. Friend knows, there has been further correspondence between the authority and my Department and between myself and the chairman. I have in the past few days received a further letter from the chairman, to which I replied as follows:
It seems to me to be absolutely fundamental that your authority should be able to know the facts of what occurred, in a hospital for which you have responsibility, and that you should be reasonably sure that an incident of this kind is not likely to happen again. 


You appear in your letter to be saying that you cannot be reasonably sure. This puts a rather different aspect on the view I took earlier about civil proceedings. I had thought you had done what you could to ensure that this incident does not recur. But in view of your latest letter I am not now happy that you should rely on court action by relatives to find out what happened. There is also the possibility that the case would be settled out of court.
My hon. Friend said how unsatisfactory it would be if there were a settlement and the real facts were never known.
My letter continues:
I have only in the last few days received copies of papers which date back as far as May and include statements from the doctors concerned. Having seen these, I suggest that you now put this evidence right away to the scrutiny of outside experts. They can be asked to give a view on possible causes, and on what further evidence may be needed. In this way, it may very well be possible for you to have all the information you need"—
to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion—
and I hope you will then be able to clear this up locally. I am reluctant to set up the panoply of a section 84 inquiry into what may turn out to be a tragic accident which could not have been foreseen, unless it is clear that all other means of investigating the issues have failed. Would you please give me a full report on the action you take and its results as soon as possible.
That is the situation as it stands at the moment. I think that my hon. Friend was right to raise this subject tonight, and I hope that he will agree that there are now good prospects for sorting this out satisfactorily. As my hon. Friend said, wider issues are involved. For example, a problem faces the Medical Defence Union when it has to advise its members not to give statements because of the possibility of a civil action later. I suggest that we should examine that point carefully and take it up with the appropriate legal authorities.
On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the answer that I have given. I am glad that he raised the matter.

Mr. Shepherd: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to some of my hon. Friend's points.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House.

Mr. Shepherd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the deep consideration that he has given to the matter, and I welcome his recognition of the wider issues involved. It is sad that we have had to have a case as tragic as the Woodhouse case to set in train the events that my hon. Friend is now to initiate in his consideration of the legal aspects of the position. That is to be welcomed widely not just by the medical profession, because it has wider ramifications than that.
My hon. Friend was kind enough to let me have a copy of the letter from which he quoted, which I received during the last division and which I had a chance only to glimpse before the debate. I am still slightly perturbed that it may not be possible, under the proposals that he has made to the area health authority, for the people of Herefordshire to be openly satisfied that there can be no repetition. Nevertheless, I am happy to go along with my hon. Friend's proposals, secure in the knowledge that, if things do not go right, he still has the section 84 inquiry to fall back on if all else fails. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his consideration of the matter tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o' clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S RULING (ADJOURNMENT DEBATES)

The following Private Ruling given by Mr. Speaker is published in accordance with Mr. Speaker's statement of 5 November 1981—[Official Report, c. 113.]

On 2 December 1981—[Official Report, c. 267]—I reiterated my view that it is unreasonable after 8 pm to call on Ministers to be ready to answer an Adjournment debate of which no previous notice has been given, and I stated that my predecessors and I have always deprecated attempts to raise matters on the Adjournment without the presence of a Minister.
I have been asked to rule whether my statement of 2 December should be taken to mean that I take a different view from Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster who, on 14 February 1964, having drawn attention to the fact that due notice had not been given to a Minister, said in reference to the hon. Member seeking to speak:
I cannot prohibit him from doing so, but I deprecate the practice unless notice has been given to the Minister".—[Official Report, 14 February 1964; Vol. 689, c. 800.]
I now rule that my statement of 2 December does not seek to take the matter further than Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's ruling, save that it provides a definition of "due notice", to which I intend to adhere until the House decides otherwise.